50 replies to this topic

[Chaos]

David is surfing today.  I don't want him to come back to 10 pages of off-topic posts.  I see a good chance for a new thread in gtaggart's CFR to Sethbag.  

Back to the topic, folks.

gtaggart started a new thread for the threadjack topic:

What Did Joseph Believe?, A spin-off from the Book of Moses thread

Edited by Chaos, 16 July 2007 - 03:00 PM.

[William Schryver]

Chaos, on Jul 16 2007, 01:50 PM, said:

David is surfing today.  I don't want him to come back to 10 pages of off-topic posts.  I see a good chance for a new thread in gtaggart's CFR to Sethbag.  

Back to the topic, folks.

gtaggart started a new thread for the threadjack topic:

What Did Joseph Believe?, A spin-off from the Book of Moses thread

Are there sharks in Rhode Island?  

[Nevo]

William Schryver, on Jul 16 2007, 09:10 AM, said:

This is a faulty conclusion, for both the reasons I cite above and the second item I shall note below. Again, Joseph Smith was restoring a text that considerably predates the formulation of our present-day Genesis, and purports to be the original writings of Moses.

Perhaps my wording was imprecise. In any case, we agree that Joseph believed he was restoring an original writing of Moses, a corrupted version of which survives in our present-day Genesis.

However, just because Joseph Smith regarded his revision of Genesis as a restoration of an original writing of Moses does not mean that we must do the same. I agree with David that the evidence of critical scholarship "suggests that this is not a correct interpretation" and that "rather than a restoration of ancient texts, the JST makes greater sense as an example of an inspired workbook that reveals the theological discoveries of an inspired prophet of God" (see also, Kevin L. Barney, "Reflections on the Documentary Hypothesis," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 33, no. 1 [2000]: 76-77).

Even Elder McConkie was open to the idea that at least some of the Book of Moses was inspired commentary rather than a restoration of an original text:

Quote

The things in the forepart of the book of Genesis are true. But the forepart of Genesis is virtually rewritten in the book of Moses and there is a tremendous added flood of light and knowledge because of what the Prophet added by the spirit of inspiration. I do not know whether he added all of it because it was in the original record or whether some of it is inspired interpolation by him, but that doesn't matter. The point is that when he gives us the book of Moses, he is giving a book that contains the sense and meaning of the early chapters in Genesis. So we have two translations, as it were, of the same thing and both of them are true.  

-- Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, ed. Mark L. McConkie (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1989),  269.

Accepting the Documentary Hypothesis does entail rejecting the Book of Moses as a textual restoration of an original writing of Moses--I don't think we can get around that--but it doesn't necessarily entail (pace Bachman) that the Book of Moses is uninspired. Indeed, as David pointed out in his initial post, there is much to be said in its favor.

Edited by Nevo, 16 July 2007 - 09:03 PM.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Nevo,

Thanks for providing the quote from Elder McConkie.  This was very helpful.

Quote

Perhaps my wording was imprecise. In any case, we agree that Joseph believed he was restoring an original writing of Moses, a corrupted version of which survives in our present-day Genesis.

I think we need to remain open to the possibility that Joseph Smith recognized that his revisions were not restoring an original text.  

In addition to the quotations I provided, the comparison between Josephâ??s explanation of the â??originalâ? version of Genesis 1:1-3 and the revision provided in Moses 2:1-3 suggests that at least by the end of his ministry, Joseph recognized that his revision of Genesis was not a restoration of the original text.

Surely the Prophet was smart enough to recognize when he explained that Genesis 1:1 originally read â??the head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods,â? that his revision of the passage did not match this wording.

If one assumes that the Prophet was simply making it all up as he went along, it would seem odd to believe that Joseph was capable of keeping track of the complex narrative details witnessed in the Book of Mormon in a way that avoided internal contradictions but was unable to remember that his revision of Genesis 1:1 did not read â??the head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods.â?

Anyone who assumes that Joseph himself was responsible for his scriptural texts needs to remain consistent.  The Prophet canâ??t be a creative genius cable of avoiding contradictions throughout the Book of Mormon yet fail to recall that his explanation of the original version of Genesis 1:1 did not match Moses 2:1-3.

Hello Seth,

Quote

It depends really if you're just trying to support the modern LDS approach to the scripture, ie: the apologetic approach, or whether you care at all what the original authors actually believed and meant when they wrote their stories. If you believe that the original, ancient authors of the separate fragments actually believed in this quandary, then you should be able to support that somehow, and not just by saying hey, Joseph Smith said they did, and he would know, because he is, you know, a Prophet. This is the point, after all, of these various sorts of textual criticism, is it not?

If you don't wish to approach this sort of criticism with an open mind, interested in discovering, to the extent possible, what was meant and intended by the original authors, then why bother with it at all? Just read what Joseph Smith wrote, bear your testimony to the world that you "know" it's true, and be done with it.

Iâ??m certainly not going to argue against the importance of finding out what the original biblical authors actually believed.  Thatâ??s precisely what I have devoted my academic career to discovering.  Again, I believe in not only the legitimacy of the documentary hypothesis, but in its importance as tool for proper biblical interpretation.

I have even pointed out to LDS students in a variety of classes that the contradictions in the opening chapters of Genesis derive from the compilation of two separate sources.  I honestly believe that more Latter-day Saints should have exposure to the insights gained from critical biblical scholarship.

Nonetheless, I refuse to accept that it is somehow â??wrong,â? as Talâ??s post suggest, for a religious group that accepts the Bible as scriptural to interpret Genesis as a literary whole.  In the end, the Bible has been compiled in a way that the sources have been blended together to create a single literary unit.  

Hence, LDS prophetic commentary which interprets the command to multiply and replenish the earth together with the story of Eden appropriately relies upon the text as it has actually been preserved, namely as a single literary whole.  

Why are the views presented in the individual sources more important than the view of the editor/redactor who complied the sources into a single literary unit?

In other words, unlike you and Tal, both as a Biblicist and a believing Latter-day Saint, I do not believe that the issue is an either/or situation.  

One can approach the text recognizing the original authors' intent while at the same time appreciating what the Bible in its current form has to offer.  

Hello Will,

Quote

Are there sharks in Rhode Island?

Well, the movie Jaws was filmed at Marthaâ??s Vineyard.  Sharks, however, are not nearly as frightening as other surfers who donâ??t know what theyâ??re doing.  

Yesterday I had been up working a six foot wave for several minutes when another guy on a board decided to try and take off in front of me (this is a major violation of surfing protocol since the one up and riding has exclusive rights to the wave).  

When the guy realized what he had done, he panicked and sent his board right into my knee cap. Fortunately, all I ended up with was a nice gash and a swollen knee.  

The swell seems to have hit New Hampshire.  Off for more today.

Happiness to all.

[Danite3459]

David,

In light of your thoughts, what would be your take on Moses 1:40-42?

And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things which I shall speak. And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men--among as many as shall believe. These words were spoken unto Moses in the Mount, the name of which shall not be known among the children of men. And now they are spoken unto you (Moses 1:40-42). Doesn't this sound like a restoration of lost text written by Moses?

Danite

David Bokovoy, on Jul 17 2007, 08:26 AM, said:

Hello Nevo,

Thanks for providing the quote from Elder McConkie.  This was very helpful.
I think we need to remain open to the possibility that Joseph Smith recognized that his revisions were not restoring an original text.  

In addition to the quotations I provided, the comparison between Josephâ??s explanation of the â??originalâ? version of Genesis 1:1-3 and the revision provided in Moses 2:1-3 suggests that at least by the end of his ministry, Joseph recognized that his revision of Genesis was not a restoration of the original text.

Surely the Prophet was smart enough to recognize when he explained that Genesis 1:1 originally read â??the head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods,â? that his revision of the passage did not match this wording.

If one assumes that the Prophet was simply making it all up as he went along, it would seem odd to believe that Joseph was capable of keeping track of the complex narrative details witnessed in the Book of Mormon in a way that avoided internal contradictions but was unable to remember that his revision of Genesis 1:1 did not read â??the head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods.â?

Anyone who assumes that Joseph himself was responsible for his scriptural texts needs to remain consistent.  The Prophet canâ??t be a creative genius cable of avoiding contradictions throughout the Book of Mormon yet fail to recall that his explanation of the original version of Genesis 1:1 did not match Moses 2:1-3.

Hello Seth,
Iâ??m certainly not going to argue against the importance of finding out what the original biblical authors actually believed.  Thatâ??s precisely what I have devoted my academic career to discovering.  Again, I believe in not only the legitimacy of the documentary hypothesis, but in its importance as tool for proper biblical interpretation.

I have even pointed out to LDS students in a variety of classes that the contradictions in the opening chapters of Genesis derive from the compilation of two separate sources.  I honestly believe that more Latter-day Saints should have exposure to the insights gained from critical biblical scholarship.

Nonetheless, I refuse to accept that it is somehow â??wrong,â? as Talâ??s post suggest, for a religious group that accepts the Bible as scriptural to interpret Genesis as a literary whole.  In the end, the Bible has been compiled in a way that the sources have been blended together to create a single literary unit.  

Hence, LDS prophetic commentary which interprets the command to multiply and replenish the earth together with the story of Eden appropriately relies upon the text as it has actually been preserved, namely as a single literary whole.  

Why are the views presented in the individual sources more important than the view of the editor/redactor who complied the sources into a single literary unit?

In other words, unlike you and Tal, both as a Biblicist and a believing Latter-day Saint, I do not believe that the issue is an either/or situation.  

One can approach the text recognizing the original authors' intent while at the same time appreciating what the Bible in its current form has to offer.  

Hello Will,
Well, the movie Jaws was filmed at Marthaâ??s Vineyard.  Sharks, however, are not nearly as frightening as other surfers who donâ??t know what theyâ??re doing.  

Yesterday I had been up working a six foot wave for several minutes when another guy on a board decided to try and take off in front of me (this is a major violation of surfing protocol since the one up and riding has exclusive rights to the wave).  

When the guy realized what he had done, he panicked and sent his board right into my knee cap. Fortunately, all I ended up with was a nice gash and a swollen knee.  

The swell seems to have hit New Hampshire.  Off for more today.

Happiness to all.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Danite,

Hope all is well with you and your family.

Quote

Doesn't this sound like a restoration of lost text written by Moses?

Yes.  It certainly does sound like a restoration of a lost text written by Moses, but I do not believe that it is.

Despite the fact that I believe very strongly in the legitimacy of the JST as inspired scripture, I do not believe that the Prophet's efforts restored an original existing text.  

But of course I'm OK with it if you do.

Best,

--David

Edited by David Bokovoy, 17 July 2007 - 06:42 PM.

[William Schryver]

David,

Why should we not consider the possibility that Moses was in possession of essentially the same records possessed by Abraham?

Quote

Abraham 1

28 â?¦ I shall endeavor â?¦ to delineate the chronology running back from myself to the beginning of the creation, for the records have come into my hands, which I hold unto this present time.

Apocryphal sources indicate that the records which Abraham possessed had come down from none other than Enoch.

And, of course, as Professor Nibley so adeptly demonstrated, the Book of Moses shows all the signs of having been distilled from the record of Enoch, even containing a fairly extensive account of that most elusive of all the prophets.

Clearly there was a collection of records that had come down the line of the patriarchs to Enoch:

Quote

Moses 6

46  For a book of remembrance we have written among us, according to the pattern given by the finger of God; and it is given in our own language.

And clearly it is a significant book:

Quote

D&C 107

56 â?¦ Adam stood up in the midst of the congregation; and, notwithstanding he was bowed down with age, being full of the Holy Ghost, predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation.

57  These things were all written in the book of Enoch, and are to be testified of in due time.

Why should we not consider the possibility that this same record, or a transmitted version thereof, descended in a direct line from Enoch to Noah to Shem to Abraham to Joseph and finally to Moses?  And that from this very record, Moses crafted an account of the antediluvian period, and that Joseph Smith restored that very record, in fulfillment of the prophecy cited by the illustrious Danite above?

Quote

Moses 1

40  And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things which I shall speak.

41  And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of menâ??among as many as shall believe.

I, for one, believe this is precisely what occurred -- and that when the Book of Enoch mentioned in D&C 107 is "testified of in due time," we will find that it was the essential source for our own Book of Moses.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Will,

Just so everyone knows, Iâ??m in no way on any intellectual crusade trying to convince fellow Church members that my view of the JST is what everyone else should accept.  

Quote

Why should we not consider the possibility that Moses was in possession of essentially the same records possessed by Abraham?

He might have been, but if so, we do not have copies of those records.  

The JST is the Prophetâ??s inspired revision of the King James Version of the Bible.  Therefore, the Book of Moses is a revision of the opening chapters of the KJV.  Based upon the KJV of the Bible, Josephâ??s revisions still include the linguistic and more importantly, the theological distinctions manifested in the separate Pentateuchal sources.  In addition to their theological distinctions, these sources derive historically from a much later time period than Moses.  

So, from my perspective, while Moses might have been in possession of the same records possessed by Abraham, those records are not represented in the King James Version of the Bible, nor in the Prophetâ??s inspired revision of the Pentateuchal sources.

Still, as I have tried to illustrate in this and in other recent threads, the Book of Moses features an amazing grasp of important, albeit extremely subtle theological and cultural perspectives associated with the Bible and the ancient Near East.  

Clearly Josephâ??s revisions were inspired.  Yet perhaps the most important aspect of the JST is that Josephâ??s theological ponderings that occurred while working through the Bible led directly to many of the revelations presented in the D&C.

As Danel Bachman has illustrated, section 132 (which I personally consider one of the most powerful revelations God has ever given to man) is an amalgamation of three separate questions/answers the Prophet encountered while revising the KJV.

Best,

-David

Edited by David Bokovoy, 18 July 2007 - 06:33 AM.

[William Schryver]

David:

Quote

The JST is the Prophetâ??s inspired revision of the King James Version of the Bible.

I suppose this is what I question.  I understand (as Nevo cited above) that Joseph Smith may have considered that his reception of the revelation of the Book of Moses was an inspired revision of the KJV of Genesis.  That may have been a logical conclusion on his part since the revelation came in consequence of the commandment to â??translateâ? the Bible, and specifically as a result of his reading of Genesis.

However, we today may in fact be in a better position to judge its true origin than was Joseph Smith.  I donâ??t say this because I think that 21st century â??thinkersâ? or â??scholarsâ? are wiser or more capable than was the Prophet, but simply because I donâ??t think it would have been that important to the Lord to correct a minor misconception on the part of Joseph.  His interest was in conveying the â??lost wordâ? to His people.

Quote

â?¦ they shall be had again among the children of menâ??among as many as shall believe.

Now, in consequence of the discovery (over the course of the past 100+ years) of purported books of Enoch, we can conclude with a good measure of probability that what we call the Book of Moses may very well resemble parts of the ancient Book of Enoch.  It has all the necessary components, and many of those components are confirmed by these recently-discovered sources.

I understand that you believe the text, in its entirety, is a production of the 19th century â?? albeit a divinely inspired one.  But I see a precedent in the scriptural record for what I am suggesting: that the Book of Moses is an actual â??translationâ? of a portion of the Book of Enoch â?? the book which shall be â??testified of in due time.â?  Of course, that precedent is the 7th section of the Doctrine & Covenants.  We are told explicitly that it is:

Quote

Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Oliver Cowdery, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, April 1829, when they inquired through the Urim and Thummim as to whether John, the beloved disciple, tarried in the flesh or had died. The revelation is a translated version of the record made on parchment by John and hidden up by himself.

If we are to take this literally (and I see no reason why we should not do so), then we must admit that the Lord sees fit to restore lost scripture by apparently producing a .pdf file of the original (as it were -- presumably from the digital archive) and then permit the anointed seer to translate from the original, thereby causing the actual words of the ancients to be preserved unto the latest generations.

Anyway, it doesnâ??t really matter to me either way.  If you are right and I am wrong, or vice versa, or if neither of us is right â?? I am still confident that the Book of Moses is the word of God, as I am sure you are as well.  But I am fascinated with the apparent similarities between the two books of Moses and Enoch.  I trust the promise of the Lord that we will one day receive the great blessing of having both the books of Enoch and the brother of Jared restored to us.  Then perhaps this debate can be resolved to the satisfaction of all.

[William Schryver]

I rarely "bump" a thread.  But I'm feeling like this one got buried a little too soon.  So ...

B U M P

^
|
|
|
|
|
^

[Olavarria]

bump