In Defense of the late John Tvedtnes

Richard Packham has shown his true colours with the following post:

Another apologist bites the dust: John Tvedtnes

One example of JT's academic dishonesty was a video which showed several apologists deffendiing BoM against critics. JT took on the claim that the BoM spoke of horses when there were no horses in America at BoM times. He read the passage in 2 Nephi that said the people had horses. Then he pointed out that the passage was simply a quote from Isaiah, and OF COURSE the people he was talking about had horses, but that was in the Old World! QED! Implied: the BoM does not mention American horses.

Of course he did not deal with the other half dozen BoM passages mentioning horses that clearly refer to Nephites and Jaredites.

This is not an example of Tvedtnes' dishonesty, but Packham's. The Living Hope Ministries' video attempted to portray the Book of Mormon as speaking of horses and chariots as being abundant. That is the context of Tvedtnes discussing the fact that they were using Nephi's quotation of Isaiah out of context. Tvedtnes was more than familiar with the issue of horses elsewhere in the Book of Mormon among both the Jaredites and Nephites (see the section, “A Horse is a Horse, of Course” in his paper, The Mistakes of Men: Can the Scriptures be Error-Free?

Here is the video clip Packham is speaking of:

pt 5 Horses, (full-length) rebuttal of an anti-Mormon

Watching the clip, it becomes clear that Tvedtnes's statement pertains to chariots, not horses per se, and that it was in the Old World, not New, that the Book of Mormon (though the Isaiah texts) speaks of many chariots as well as horses.

This clip comes from FAIR (now FairMormon's) full-length refutation of Living Hope Ministries' The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon which can be viewed at:

LDS scholars review the Bible vs. the Book of Mormon

Packham is just proving himself to be disingenuous.

It should also be noted that the “horse” may not be an anachronism in the Book of Mormon anymore. For a full discussion, see Wade E. Miller and Matthew Roper, Animals in the Book of Mormon: Challenges and Perspectives, BYU Studies 56/4. For a summary, see the article from Book of Mormon Central, New Evidence for Horses in America.

I also recall Tvedtnes explaining why some of Joseph Smith's prophecies failed to come true: they had not yet been "canonized" (a term he kept from his Catholic upbringing).

"Canonised" is not a uniquely Catholic term. It is used in theology (not just Catholic) to refer to works accepted as a collection of authoritative texts (further, how it is popularly used in Catholic theology and piety often refers to the recognition of someone being in heaven and it being proper to pray to/through them to seek their heavenly intercession).

With respect to prophecies, Tvedtnes' response to Dick Baer's listing of 52 purportedly false prophecies can be found here:

A Reply to Dick Baer

Tvedtnes engages in historical analysis and exegesis in this 1985 paper, so I find it hard to believe that Packham's recollection of his exchange with Tvedtnes on this point is correct.

At 84 years of age, Packham himself will soon be meeting his maker, and unlike Tvedtnes has a one-way ticket to hell (cf. Rev 21:8). One does hope and pray he will repent before it is too late.

Richard Packham's review of Book of Mormon Book of Lies

While I disagree with him on many issues, ex-Mormon atheist Richard Packham has a pretty good review of the book, Book of Mormon Book of Lies by Meredith and Kendal Sheets (2012), a volume arguing that Joseph Smith plagiarised from the accounts of Marco Polo's travels. One can find the entire review here. The following are some highlights thereof:

Readers anxious to find any criticism of the LDS church or its sacred founding scripture, however far-fetched, will grab this book. But even the most ardent "anti-Mormons" should ask some fundamental questions about the authors' claims . . . Another obvious omission is the authors' apparent ignorance about a major event in the coming forth of the BoM: the loss of the first 116 pages of the manuscript by Martin Harris. Most scholars, Mormon and non-Mormon, who have examined the textual and historical evidence, say that the present first part of the BoM (replacing the lost pages) was written only after the last part had been completed. This fact alone would raise serious problems with the Sheets theory, which is based on the assumption that the BoM manuscript was started on page one and continued steadily onward.

Another part of the Sheets theory that seems unwarranted is that something appearing on page 266 of the 1830 BoM (that is, 266/588th of the way into the book) could be a copy of something 266/588th of the way into the Travels of Marco Polo. Such an assumption would require that the supposed plagiarists were being so methodical that they knew beforehand that their own manuscript would be 588 pages long, and they were measuring their own writing alongside the Polo book. Sorry, but that is quite unlikely. And plagiarists don't work that way . . .Many examples of parallels between BoM civilizations and Polo's accounts of customs among the Tartars of eastern Asia are given. The authors explain this by citing one pre-1830 writer who theorized that the American Indians are descended from Tartar invaders who were blown off course during an attempt to invade Japan (a historical event) and landed in America. This justified the Smiths in putting features of Tartar civilization into the BoM, as they would be "authentic." The authors do not explain how this alleged idea of the Smiths would fit in with their premise in the BoM that the American Indians are descended from Israelites, not from Tartars.

Several other questions arise that put the basic premises of the authors in doubt. They must assume that the Smiths actually had access to these many travel books over a course of several years. This implies that they owned the books. All our evidence of the Smith family situation during that time is that they were rather poor. They lost their farm for failure to make payments. They fell behind even in their subscription to the local newspaper. How could they afford to accumulate a small library of esoteric books? The authors suggest that they could have traveled to larger cities to bookstores, or that a relative who made trips to London could get them. And then one must ask what eventually became of this library of travel books? They seem to have disappeared, like the golden plates and the 116 pages of manuscript.

The lost 116 pages raises another question. Clearly, from all accounts, Joseph Jr. was devastated when Harris confessed to having lost the manuscript. Why? If Sr. and Jr. had been working on the project since 1811, they had a manuscript already, which was written in their own handwriting. The 116 lost pages were not in the Smiths' handwriting, but had been written by scribes. Why were the Smiths so concerned? If, as the Sheets suggest, the Smiths had written the whole thing, without scribes, why didn't they simply go through the dictation process again, for the lost pages? And then we must also ask, where is the real original manuscript, in the Smiths' handwriting? . . .the majority of the similarities which the authors see as proof of plagiarism are just coincidences, and nothing more. It does not prove plagiarism if the description of a ruler's residence in two different works includes words such as "palace," "magnificent," "gold," "throne," etc. Coincidences are common, and prove nothing.

Actually, is it not quite a coincidence that there are so many similarities between the story of the production of the book under review and the authors' scenario about the production of the BoM?

·       Both books were written by a father and son team;

·       Both were originally the idea of the father;

·       Both took decades to put together;

·       Both were self-published;

·       Both books were claimed by their authors that they would "alter the course of global religion," but did not;

·       Both books claimed to be new and unique, but were not;

·       Both books are the same length (Sheets: 590, BoM: 588);

·       The son took on the major role of promoting both books: Smith Jr. founded a church and sent missionaries out; Kendal Sheets does the promoting for his book, making frequent public appearances to promote it and has hired a public relations firm (DeHart & Company) for that purpose.

Concluding this rather negative review, Packham writes:

In summary, there are too many problems with this book to recommend it, even to the BoM's most fervent critics.

One has to give credit where credit is due to Packham for writing a rather negative review of a book that, at the time, was pretty popular in the world of online anti-Mormonism.

Interestingly, one former LDS who, while portraying himself as an expert on Mormonism (when in fact he lacks even basic intellectual integrity) wrote a rather favourable review of the book, with this hilarious conclusion:

Their work, over 25 years no less, is clearly extensive and painstaking offering such an abundance of evidence one wonders how on earth the Mormon Church is going to have anything to say about this.

In the comments section, he wrote:

I suggest you take off your blinkers, examine the real world evidence, and weigh up Mormon claims against that.

Physician, heal thyself! Perhaps he should take up his own advice before writing pieces like this!

In reality, the methodology of the authors in their book (which I own/have read, fwiw) is "parallelomania." For a good discussion of this issue, I would recommend the works of Benjamin McGuire, such as this paper, "Parallelomania Criticism of the Textual Parallels Theories."

Furthermore, this novel (and whacky) thesis does not explain the evidences for the verisimilitude and historicity of the Book of Mormon, including the use of a pre-exilic source of the David-Goliath narrative; the Arabian Peninsula geography of the Book of Mormon; the onomasticon of the Book of Mormon, and many other elements that belie the thesis that it was fabricated by Joseph Smith.

Isabel in the Book of Mormon

I have interacted with some of Richard Packham’s arguments in his online paper, “A Linguist Looks at Mormonism: Notes on Linguistic Problems in Mormonism” (searching on “Packham” will bring up a few results on this blog). In this post, I will discuss his argument under the heading, “Isabel the Harlot”:

The Book of Mormon mentions a harlot named Isabel (Alma 39:3). "Isabel" is a name that only came into use in France and Italy during the late Middle Ages.   How could it occur in the Book of Mormon during Alma's life?

Being rather frank, this argument is unbecoming of someone who (allegedly) knows Hebrew. The name appears in the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew underlining "Jezebel" in the KJV is אִיזֶבֶל. The KJV transliterates the letter yod (י) as “j,” which is common (e.g., Jesiah; Jesaiah; Joshua), though the more proper transliteration would be “I” (e.g., Isaiah; Ishmael); furthermore, the letter zayin (ז) can be transliterated as “s”; indeed, the Hebrew can be transliterated as 'izebel, similar to how it appears in the Book of Mormon. Packham’s claims notwithstanding, there is no issue with the appearance of “Isabel” in the Book of Mormon.

Virgin or Young Lady? An Examination of Isaiah 7:14 (2 Nephi 17:14)

Richard Packham, a former member of the LDS Church, and a long-standing critic thereof, wrote in his article, "A Linguist Looks at Mormonism: Notes on linguistics problems in Mormonism,” wrote the following under the heading of “More King James Mistranslations in the Book of Mormon":

"virgin" - 2 Nephi 17:14 = Isaiah 7:14

The Book of Mormon preserves some demonstrable mistranslations of the King James Version of the Bible.   One notable example is Isaiah 7:14, which in the KJV is translated "a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."     This is copied word for word into the Book of Mormon at 2 Nephi 17:14.   The problem is that the Hebrew text has the word 'almah,' which does not mean "virgin," but "young woman": the Hebrew word for "virgin" is 'bethulah,' and most modern Bible translations do not use "virgin" to translate Isaiah 7:14.   (Some Christians, including the author of Matthew 1:22-23, view this passage as a prophecy of the birth of Jesus from the virgin Mary, but that ignores the entire context of that chapter: the purpose of the prophecy was to answer King Ahaz' question about the outcome of his upcoming war with Syria and Israel.)

The error can be traced back to the fact that the King James translators relied heavily on the Latin (Vulgate) translation of the Bible by Jerome, from the 4th century A.D.   Jerome, in turn, relied on the Greek (Septuagint) translation of the Old Testament.   In Greek there is only one word for both meanings ("virgin" and "young woman"), making the Greek translation from Hebrew ambiguous.   But why would Nephi be confused?   He was (supposedly) in possession of the original Hebrew text, which would have had the word 'almah,' not 'bethulah.' But he mistranslates the passage just as Jerome and the King James translators mistranslated it many centuries later.

It is true that the Book of Mormon speaks of Mary being a “virgin,” both in its quotation of Isa 7:14 in 2 Nephi 17:14, as well as various other texts speaking of the then-future mother of the Messiah (1 Nephi 11:13, 15, 18, 20; Alma 7:10). However, there are problems with the argument from Packham.

Firstly, עַלְמָה (young lady) can and is used interchangeably with בְּתוּלָה (virgin). Notice the description of Rebekah in Gen 24:16, 43 (from the 1985 JPS Tanakh translation):

The maiden was very beautiful, a virgin (בְּתוּלָה) whom no man had known. She went down to the spring, filled her jar, and came up . . . As I stand by the spring of water, let the young woman (עַלְמָה) who comes out to draw and to whom I say, "Please, let me drink a little water from your jar."

Indeed, in most instances, a “young lady” would be expected to be a “virgin,” so it is essentially an issue of semantics.

Furthermore, we see this interchangeability of the terms in other Northwest Semitic languages (same language family as Hebrew).

In an Ugaritic poem recounting the marriage between Nikkal and the lunar goddess, we find the following:

tld btl[t]

[lk]trt lbnt hll [snnt]

hl lmt tld b[n]

The first and third lines can be translated thusly:

The virgin (bethulah) bears

. . .

Behold, the young woman ('almah) shall bear a son.

This text is strikingly similar to Isa 7:14.

It should also be noted that The Testament of Joseph, found in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, a pseudepigraphic text dated from the 2nd to 3rd century B.C. (though some scholars argue it evidences some later Christian interpolations, so caveat lector), speaking of the then-future Messiah, speaks of his mother as being a "virgin."[1]

At the very least, the contention of Packham that the Book of Mormon follows a KJV “error” in 2 Nephi 17:14 is not as clear-cut as they like to make it out to be; indeed, there is good evidence that Isa 7:14 should be understood as a Messianic text about a virgin, not just a young lady, giving birth to the Saviour.[2]

Notes for the above:

[1] See "The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; New York, Doubleday: 1983-1985), ed. J.H. Charlesworth, 1:775-828.

[2] While I disagree with some elements of his comments about the Hebrew, see Michael Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2010).

Responding to criticisms about the Nephite Currency System in Alma 11

Gardner's discussion of the money system described in the BoM does not make much sense. He suggests that gold and silver were so abundant in Mesoamerica that they did not have much value, and that is why Mesoamericans did not use them as money. Then why is the BoM money system based on them? Gardner makes much of the point that the BoM does not use the word "coin," but that does not solve the problem. Calling a "piece of gold" of a certain weight simply a "piece" does not mean it is not a "coin." Gardner provides no explanation of why the basis of the Nephite money system was "barley," which did not exist among the Maya. (Richard Packham, Review of Brant Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History)

As with many of his arguments against the Book of Mormon and his attempted interactions with Latter-day Saint apologetics and scholarship, Packham fails on many counts.

The use of “pieces” in Alma 11:4

Calling a "piece of gold" of a certain weight simply a "piece" does not mean it is not a "coin."

There are a couple of problems with this argument. Firstly, if one looks up the first definition in Webster's 1828 dictionary, one will find a definition fitting an ancient weight, “A fragment or part of anything separated from the whole, in any manner, by cutting, splitting, breaking or tearing; as, to cut in pieces, break in pieces, tear in pieces, pull in pieces, etc.; a piece of a rock; a piece of paper.” One would also add as an extra example, “a piece of gold” or "a piece of silver.” Such a definition is part-and-parcel of ancient usage of metal weights as currency.

Furthermore, the KJV, in pre-exilic texts (or texts that are set in the pre-exilic era), couples “piece” with terms such as “gold,” showing that “piece” was understood to denote, not just a coin, but a weight, consistent with Alma 11 in the Book of Mormon and modern Book of Mormon exegesis and scholarship. Consider the following (emphasis added):

And be bought a parcel of a field, where he had spread his tent, at the hand of the children of Hamor, Shechem's father, for a hundred pieces of money. (Gen 33:19)

And the king of Aram said, "Go to, go, and I will send a letter unto the king of Israel. And he departed and took with him ten talents of silver, and six thousand pieces of gold, and ten changes of raiment." (2 Kgs 5:5)

Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him: every man also gave him a piece of money, and everyone an earring of gold." (Job 42:11)

Alma 11 and the Antiquity of the Book of Mormon

This is a topic that has been discussed in detail by Latter-day Saint scholars. One recent example would be pp. 3-14 of Robert F. Smith, "The Preposterous Book of Mormon A Singular Advantage," (cf. John W. Welch, "Weighing and Measuring in the Worlds of the Book of Mormon" [Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8/2, pp. 37-47]). wherein the author shows (1) the Old World evidence for the Nephite system and (2) the authentically Semitic names of the various weights and measurements thereof.

Alma 11 and Mesoamerica

On the issue of Mesoamerica and Alma 11, I would suggest the paper, "A Mesoamerican System of Weights and Measures? Did the ancient peoples of Mesoamerica use a system of weights and scales in measuring goods and their values?" (Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8/1 [1999], 47, 86-87).

Further, as John L. Sorenson wrote:

In the Aztec marketplace, Cortez and his soldiers noted that goods were sold by volume.[53] In highland Guatemala until around World War I, when scales and weights came into use, market sales were also by volume.[54] Among the historical Quiché, "particular substances were counted by the containers in which they are typically carried."[55] Popenoe de Hatch reported that archaeological excavation at Kaminaljuyu has revealed sets of ceramic vessels "manufactured to a standard pattern and of graduated sizes that possibly represented established measures for good/grains."[56]

The Nephites utilized a system of measurement in which volume, not weight, was counted (no scales or weights are ever mentioned). The phrasing of Alma 11;4, 7, and 15 is coordinate with this system in referring to values of "money" in terms of "a measure" of grain ("for a measure of barley, and also for a measure of every kind of grain," v. 7).

Notes for the Above

[53] Francis Augustue MacNutt, trans. And ed., Fernando Cortés: His Five Letters of Relation to the Emperor Charles V (Glorieta, NM: Rio Grande, 1977), 1;259

[54] Felix Webster McBryde, Cultural and Historical Geography of Southwest Guatemala, Institute of Social Anthropology Publication 4 (Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1945), 84, 150.

[55] Edmonson, Ancient Future of the Itza, 107.

[56] Marion Popenoe de Hatch, Kaminaljuyú/San Jorge, evidencia arqueológica de la actividad económia in el alle de Guatemala, 300 a.C. a 3000 d.C. (Guatemala: Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, 1997), 100.

Source: John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book [Provo/Salt Lake City: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship and Deseret Book, 2013], 442-43.

On Alma 11 and the Book of Mormon, Packham (as with many other critics) fails in his objections.

Oliver Granger and “Sacred Remembrance”

And again, I say unto you, I remember my servant Oliver Granger; behold, verily, I say unto him that his name shall be had in sacred remembrance from generation to generation, forever and ever, saith the Lord. (D&C 117:12)

Richard Packham, a critic of the LDS Church, wrote the following in his online paper, "Joseph Smith as a Prophet":

PROPHECY ABOUT OLIVER GRANGER: July 8, 1838. D&C 117:12-15. Revelation and prophecy regarding Oliver Granger: "his name shall be had in sacred remembrance from generation to generation, forever and ever, saith the Lord... let the blessings of my people be on him forever and ever."

FULFILLED?: Few Mormons know anything about Oliver Granger beyond this mention in the D&C, and most are even unaware of that. As far as the Mormon people are concerned, Oliver Granger has been forgotten, rather than "had in sacred remembrance ... forever and ever."

This post will examine this claim to false prophecy.

Firstly, as to who Oliver Granger was, the following comes from vol. 4 of Robinson and Garrett’s A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants, pp. 127-28:

12. Oliver Granger. Oliver Granger was a man of great integrity and great business skills who could have made himself wealthy had he not consecrated his time and talents to the service of the kingdom. Brother Granger had arrived in Far West in June 1838, but when Doctrine and Covenants 117 was received the following month, he was sent to Kirtland with a copy of that revelation for President Marks and Bishop Whitney. He remained in Kirtland conducting business for the First Presidency until October 1838, when he returned briefly to Far West. The exodus from Missouri prevented Granger from returning to Ohio until 1840, where he continued to conduct the business of the Church in Kirtland until his death on 25 August 1841. As long as the world stands, this revelation (D&C 117) and the Lord's glorious commendation of Oliver Granger will be sacred scripture for the Latter-day Saints.

13. The redemption of the First Presidency. This phrase refers to the financial redemption of the First Presidency and the restoration of their reputation for honesty, which Granger brought about by his skillful management of Church affairs in Ohio. Among several published tributes to the skill and integrity of Brother Granger is the following: "To all persons that are or may be interested. I, Horace Kingsbury, of Painsville township, Geauga county, and state of Ohio, feeling the importance of recommending to remembrance every worthy citizen who has by his conduct commended himself to personal acquaintance by his course of strict integrity, and desire for truth and common justice, feel it my duty to state that Oliver Granger's management in the arrangement of the unfinished business of people that have moved to the Far West, in redeeming their pledges and thereby sustaining their integrity, has been truly praiseworthy, and has entitled him to my highest esteem, and ever grateful recollection."

13. His sacrifice shall be more sacred unto me than his increase. Note the contrast between this praise for Oliver Granger and the rebuke of Brothers Marks and Whitney in verses 3 and 4. The latter two had been putting increase before their own obedience.

14. Unto the land of Zion. Granger attempted to establish his family in Far West in October 1838 but was driven out of the state by the Extermination Order of Governor Boggs. He moved back to Kirtland as Joseph Smith's business agent in 1840. There he died and is buried.

14. A merchant unto my name. Oliver Granger would remain "the Lord's businessman" for the remainder of his life. All his financial skills were consecrated to the Lord's name, and all his decisions and actions were made and done in the Lord's name.

16. And to overthrow the moneychangers. Faithful Saints were still living in Kirtland in the summer of 1838, and the stake was not disorganized there until 1841. Nevertheless, there were factions among those who professed to be Saints, and it was difficult to know who really was on the Lord's side. Many different parties struggled for control of the Kirtland Temple, and there were deep differences of opinion concerning its proper uses and function. Many Kirtland members thought of the temple as a financial resource and thus became "moneychangers." Note, for example, the disagreement over public "exhibitions" in the temple and Oliver Granger's correct refusal to hand over the temple keys to some Church leaders in Ohio who favored using the building for profane purposes.

The integrity Oliver Granger displayed in the early Church can be summed up in the following (History of the Church 3:350-51):

Monday, May 15.—I was engaged in general business at home and in transacting a variety of business with Brother Oliver Granger, and gave him the following letter:

A Letter of Recommendation to Oliver Granger from the First Presidency.

COMMERCE, ILLINOIS, 13th May, 1839.

Joseph Smith, Jun., Sidney Rigdon, and Hyrum Smith, presiding Elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby certify and solemnly declare unto all the Saints scattered abroad, and send unto them greeting: That we have always found President Oliver Granger to be a man of the most strict integrity and moral virtue; and in fine, to be a man of God.

We have had long experience and acquaintance with Brother Granger. We have entrusted vast business concerns to him, which have been managed skilfully to the support of our characters and interest as well as that of the Church; and he is now authorized by a general conference to go forth and engage in vast and important concerns as an agent for the Church, that he may fill a station of usefulness in obedience to the commandment of God, which was given unto him July $, 1838, which says, "Let him (meaning Brother Granger) contend earnestly for the redemption of the First Presidency of my Church, saith the Lord."

We earnestly solicit the Saints scattered abroad to strengthen his hands with all their might, and to put such means into his hands as shall enable him to accomplish his lawful designs and purposes, according to the commandments, and according to the instructions which he shall give unto them. And that they entrust him with moneys, lands, chattels, and goods, to assist him in this work; and it shall redound greatly to the interest and welfare, peace and satisfaction of my Saints, saith the Lord God, for this is an honorable agency which I have appointed unto him, saith the Lord. And again, verily, thus saith the Lord, I will lift up my servant Oliver, and beget for him a great name on the earth, and among my people, because of the integrity of his soul: therefore, let all my Saints abound unto him, with all liberality and long suffering, and it shall be a blessing on their heads.

We would say unto the Saints abroad, let our hearts abound with grateful acknowledgements unto God our Heavenly Father, who hath called us unto His holy calling by the revelation of Jesus Christ, in these last days, and has so mercifully stood by us, and delivered us out of the seventh trouble, which happened unto us in the State of Missouri. May God reward our enemies according to their works. We request the prayers of all the Saints, subscribing ourselves their humble brethren in tribulations, in the bonds of the everlasting Gospel.

               JOSEPH SMITH, JUN.,

               SIDNEY RIGDON,

               HYRUM SMITH.

In his paper, "The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy," John A. Tvedtnes wrote the following about this allegedly false prophecy:

Several critics have pointed to D&C 117:12-15 as a “false prophecy” because Oliver Granger’s name is unfamiliar to most Latter-day Saints despite the fact that the Lord said “that his name shall be had in sacred remembrance from generation to generation, forever and ever” (verse 12). It seems unlikely that the memory of any mortal can be called “sacred,” so the words “sacred remembrance” most likely refer to the fact that the Lord would remember him. After all, the verse begins with the Lord saying, “I remember my servant Oliver Granger.”

There is much plausibility to Tvedtnes’ argument, especially the biblical precedent for such:

For the righteous will never be moved; they will be remembered forever (Psa 112:6 NRSV)

Truly I tell you, wherever this good news is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in remembrance of her. (Matt 26:13 NRSV)

In the above two texts, it is clear that the remembrance/memorial of these people is the “divine remembrance” concept, as proposed by Tvedtnes for Oliver Granger—God’s memory thereof, not man’s.

Indeed, often Yahweh in the Old Testament is said to “remember” things such as his covenant with people, showing this concept of divine remembrance. For a good discussion, see Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, especially his analysis of αναμνησις ("remembrance/memory") in Luke 22 and 1 Cor 11.

With respect to αναμησις, the term appears five times in the LXX. Four of these five instances are within the sense of priestly sacrifice; the exception is Wisdom of Solomon 16:6. The NRSV translates the verse as follows:

They were troubled for a little while as a warning, and received a symbol of deliverance to remind (αναμνησις) them of your law's command.

The other instances of this term in the LXX are Lev 24:7; Num 10:10; Psa 38:1 [LXX, 37:1] and 70:1 [LXX, 69:1]), translating the Hebrew terms ‎  אַזְכָּרָה(Lev 24:7); ‎  זִכָּרוֹן  (Num 10:10) and‎  הַזְכִּיר (Psa 38:1; 70:1). The NRSV captures the original language text rather well:

You shall put frankincense with each row, to be a token offering for the bread, as an offering (αναμνησις) by fire to the Lord. (Lev 24:7)

Also on your days of rejoicing, at your appointed festivals, and at the beginnings of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over your sacrifices of well-being; they shall serve as a reminder (αναμνησις ) on your behalf before the Lord your God: I am the Lord your God. (Num 10:10)

A Psalm of David, for the memorial offering (αναμνησις). . . (Psa 38:1)

To the leader. Of David, for the memorial offering (αναμνησις). . . (Psa 70:1).

All of these are instances wherein God is “reminded” of His covenant via sacrifice.

Additional passages supporting the “divine remembrance” concept include:

And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. (Gen 9:15-16)

And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. (Exo 2:24)

And I have also heard the groaning of my children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. (Exo 6:5)

Then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember, and I will remember the land . . . but I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the Lord. (Lev 26:42, 45)

He hath remembered his covenant forever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. (Psa 105:8)

And he remembered for them his covenant, and repented according to the multitude of his mercies. (Psa 106:45)

Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee and everlasting covenant. (Ezek 16:60)

Thus he has shown the mercy promised to our ancestors, and has remembered his holy covenant. (Luke 1:72 NRSV)

The evidence discussed above can be summed up with the words of the psalmist:

Remember all thy offerings, and accept thy burnt sacrifice; Selah. (Psa 20:3)

All of this strongly supports Tvedtnes’ reading of D&C 117:12.

However, Richard Packham attempted to respond to Tvedtnes’ reading of this verse here. On the meaning of “sacred remembrance,” he wrote the following:

Tvedtnes' argument also suffers from the fact that the term "sacred remembrance" has frequently been used to refer to HUMAN remembrance: B. H. Roberts, in a Pioneer Day address in 1886 said (emphasis added in all quotations):

"My Brethren and Sisters: We have met on this occasion to bear witness to the world that we hold in sacred remembrance the entrance of the Pioneers into this region."

Joseph Smith said:

". . . our circumstances are calculated to awaken our spirits to a sacred remembrance of everything, ..." (DHC, Vol. 3, p. 290).

Writing from Liberty Jail, he wrote to Bishop Partridge:

"Our situation is calculated to awaken our minds to a sacred remembrance of your affection" (Times & Seasons, 1:7:99).

Later in the same letter he wrote:

"... [we] send our respects to fathers, mothers, wives, and children, brothers and sisters, and be assured we hold them in sacred remembrance." (HoC 3:297-298)

In a letter to Major-General Law (August 14, 1842) he wrote:

"And will not those who come after hold our names in sacred remembrance?" (HoC 5:94)

Orson Pratt, in commenting on Ezekiel 37:11, said

"...in other words, our forefather, whose children we are, and whose names are held in sacred remembrance by us, are all dead." (JoD 20:17).

Firstly, the impression that Packham is trying to give (that all instance of "[sacred] remembrance" refers to human, not divine, remembrance) is fallacious. Note D&C 127:9, dated September 1, 1842:

And again, let all the records be had in order, that they may be put in the archives of my holy temple to be held in remembrance from generation to generation, saith the Lord of Hosts.

Furthermore, it ignores the biblical evidence of God “remembering” things, as discussed previously, language which did influence early Latter-day Saints.

Finally, Packham’s argument suffers from a structural fallacy, that of the excluded middle. If one maps out his argument, it would go something like this:

First Premise: Some instance of "[sacred] remembrance" refers to human remembrance.

Second Premise: D&C 117:12 contains the term, "sacred remembrance."

Conclusion: D&C 117:12 refers to human remembrance.

To those familiar with formal logic, the fallacy is evident: the fallacy of undistributed middle. This means that the predicates in both the major and minor premises do not exhaust all the occurrences of "[sacred] remembrance," and would not necessitate the interpretation of "human remembrance" as Packham argues for. At best, it could refer to human remembrance, but the evidence discussed in this study shows that this is not the most exegetically sound reading.

Further support for this understanding of "sacred remembrance" comes from JST Mark 14:8:

 

KJV	1867 Inspired Version (RLDS)
She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.	She has dome what she could, and this which she has done unto me, shall be had in remembrance in generations to come, wheresoever my gospel shall be preached; for verily she has come beforehand to anoint my body to the burying.

 

New Testament Manuscript 2, Folio 2, p. 39:

 

 

For? she hath wrought a good work on me. Ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever you will, you may do them good; but me ye have not always, She has done what she could, and this which she has done unto me, shall be had in rememberence in generations to come, wheresoever my gospel is <shall be> preached; for verily, the she has come affore <before> hand to anoit my bo=dy to the burying.

According to "Time Sequence of the New  Translation" in Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: Electronic Library (2010), Mark 9:2-John 5:29 was produced between November 20, 1831, and February 16, 1832. 

While much more could be said, it should be evident that this is not a false prophecy. As with so many issues, the critics are on an exegetical fishing trip and have forgotten the fishing poles.

Further Reading:

Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies

Notes on Greek names in the Book of Mormon

A common criticism of the Book of Mormon is that it contains Greek terms and names that are anachronistic, and as a result, shows that the volume is ahistorical. This criticism ignores a number of things, not the least is that the Book of Mormon purports to be a translation; therefore, it stands to reason that the language into which the Book of Mormon has been rendered is not that from which, according to its own claims, it was translated.

A parallel would be the argument that the word “adieu” in the Jacob 7:27 “proves” the Book of Mormon to be ahistorical as French was not in existence during the time Jacob lived. However, this argument ignores a number of things, such as (1) adieu was adopted into the English language and was in use during the time of Joseph Smith as seen, for instance, in Webster’s 1828 dictionary; (2) other translated works, such as Schaff’s translation of Patristic writings, contain “adieu” (e.g. Iranaeus, Against Heresies, 4.8.3; Theophilus to Autolycus, 2.1; Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen 10).

To understand the silliness of this argument, think of a critic of the Bible claiming that the KJV (or any other translation) is false as “in the beginning” are English terms, and English did not exist when Gen 1:1 was written.

Here are some notes on some of these Greek terms:

Alpha and Omega:

“Alpha and Omega” in the Book of Mormon is an accepted English expression and we may view it as the best way of conveying the meaning of a certain Nephite expression to English readers. The purpose of a translation is to transmit meanings, not words. “Alpha and Omega” makes more sense and is more recognizable to English readers than the Hebrew equivalent, “Aleph and Tau.”

Antipas and Antipus:

Surprisingly, the names “Antipas” and “Antipus” seem to be derived from Egyptian. Budge has a place name entry Anttepus (Budge, Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, volume 2). It is interesting to note that there are spellings in Egyptian that very much sound like those in the Book of Mormon when the Book of Mormon was said to be derived from a “reformed Egyptian” script.

June 2026 Update: A cognitively limited Protestant challenged this recently. Instead of trying to track down a copy (whether in print or digital) of Budge, he asked Grok (lazy learner, I know). Here is the source from vol. 2 page 960 of Budge:

Archeantus:

In numerous Afro-Asiatic (and especially Northwest Semitic) languages there exist the “arch” preposition (or a similar sounding word) without being derived from the Greek version. Examples include the Egyptian names Arqchech, Ark-t and Arkhekh, etc, so it is obvious that the “arch” phoneme is not absent from Egyptian and might be expected in names in the Book of Mormon.

Jonas:

This simply reflects KJV NT influence on Joseph Smith at a translation level. Instead of transliterating the Hebrew  יוֹנָה as yonah, the more familiar Jonas was used.

The Bible often uses Greek names in the Old Testament for reasons of translation style. Examples include Moses, Solomon, Samuel, Job and Eve. Their Hebrew names are Mosheh, Shlomoh, Shmuel, ‘Eyob and Chawwah respectively. We can say the same thing about what Joseph Smith did.

Timothy:

The name "Timothy" means one who honours/fears God. In Greek, it is rendered Τιμόθεος. It also appears in the Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 19:4).

Assuming that Timothy (Τιμόθεος) is Joseph Smith's rendering of the name, the underlying name on the plates could be something like הדריה or הדריהו or something like that, such as הדראל. The Hebrew equivalent for Timothy (in a hypocoristic form [i.e., without the "divine name" element]) (הדר) appears at Genesis 36:39 as the name of the king of Pau:

And Baalhanan the son of Achbor died, and Hadar reigned in his stead: and the name of his city was Pau; and his wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab.

So the Semitic equivalent of "Timothy" is attested in the book of Genesis. It is also be attested in 1 Chron 1:50:

And when Baalhanan was dead, Hadad reigned in his stead: and the name of his city was Pai; and his wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab.

"Hadad" (‎הֲדַד) in 1 Chron 1:50 is the same person as "Hadar" (‎הֲדַר) in Gen 36:39. It appears that later scribes of the Hebrew Bible may have made the common mistake of confusing resh (ר) with daleth (ד). That this may just be the case can be seen in the LXX of 1 Chron 1:50 which renders the name as Αραδ Arad, not Αδαδ Adad.

"Timothy" is not an anachronism in the Book of Mormon.

Ezias:

The Tanners and Richard Packham have made the argument that this name is Greek in etymology, coming from “Esaias”; however, the truth is that this name is not a derivative of the Greek adaptation for Isaiah. This name can be found 1 Esdras 8:2 in the KJV apocrypha. It refers instead to the Hebrew “Uzzi.” For reasons of translation style (see my note under the discussion of “Timothy”) Joseph employed “Ezias.”

Angola:

In my opinion, critics such as Packham grasps at straws in his effort to show that the etymology for “Angola” in the Book of Mormon is from the Greek for angel (“angolos”). There is too great a difference in relation to spelling and pronunciation for this argument to be taken seriously.

Judea:

The same form of this name occurs in the KJV Old Testament at Ezra 5:8. It is a word (Yehud) that is derived from the tribe of Judah. If the KJV translators can do it, why can’t Joseph Smith?

Zenos:

The name “Zenos” is said by many Latter-day Saint scholars to be derived from the Hebrew name “Enos” and need not have any Greek roots.

Lachoneus:

Many critics allege that the name ‘Lachoneus’ is a Greek name derived from the Greek Lakonios meaning “Laconian.” At first blush, it does seem like a romanized version of a Greek gentillic. But one must go beyond the gentillic to the underlying etymology. Take, for example, the Semitic expression “Kn’ny.” On the surface, it appears to be “Canaanite” but also could mean “westerner” or merchant” based on etymology.


While it could be a Greek word, it could also be a corruption of an Egyptian phrase rekh nesu ("l" and "r" being interchangeable in Egyptian and other languages, including Hebrew), referring to a "royal kinsman" as a formal title.

One final note—it should be kept in mind that non-LDS scholars disagree with Richard Packham and other critics who claim there was no Greek contact with the ANE until after the time of Lehi’s departure from Jerusalem. The Ugaritic texts, dating from 1350-1150 BC, contain Greek names in their onomasticon. Furthermore, there were contacts through trade between Greece and the ANE prior to the time of Lehi et al. For a discussion of some of the issues, I would suggest the following:

Cyrus Gordon, The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations

Eric H. Cline, 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed

Robin Lane Fox, Travelling Heroes: In the Epic Age of Homer