73 replies to this topic

[Kevin Christensen]

Uncle Dale, on 28 November 2010 - 01:17 PM, said:

But it is the Book of Mormon itself that is supposed to restore the
"fulness of the gospel" in supplying the covenants and "plain and
precious parts" of the Christian Gospel excised from the Bible.

Ever since I read John Welch's first notice of the temple context of 3 Nephi 11-27, that restoration or plain and precious things  has become increasingly obvious to me.  

Quote

So, I will not be going so far as to study modern LDS temple endowments,
in order to discover those texts closest to the "purity" that Nephi
says once existed.

I sent Margaret Barker a copy of John Welch's Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount, and she was so impressed that he recently published a newer version of the same approach, The Sermon on the Mount in Light of the Temple.  And she insisted that he retain mention that he came to this understanding by way of the Book of Mormon.

Quote

Nephi does not quote any significant passages from
Enoch -- although his vision itself might be compared to Enoch material.

I think that Nephi did have Enoch material, though not necessarily the same that we have now.

Quote

What would be particularly useful is a commentary upon the DSS biblical
texts, documenting what "plain and precious parts" are missing from
them ----

Start with Deut. 32:8-9 and the Melchizedek text.  Margaret builds on those in The Risen Lord: The Jesus of History as the Christ of Faith, which in turn, converges beautifully with D&C 93.  Not the text, but the ideas expressed in the text, and the context most illuminates their meaning.

Quote

or, if the excision of such Gospel fulness came by the hand
of the Gentile AFTER the time of John the Revelator, then that demonstrated.

See her essay, "The Secret Tradition."

Quote

I remain interested, but would rather see you quote General Authorities
than non-LDS writers, when it comes to articulating Mormon doctrine.

UD

They are "General" Authorities, not "Only" Authorities.  And the doctrine that they are specifically auhtorized to spread is spelled out in 3 Nephi 11:31-35

Kevin Christensen
Bethel Park, PA

[Uncle Dale]

volgadon, on 28 November 2010 - 02:23 PM, said:

You seem to assume that the issue is a textual one
...

Nephi repeatedly uses the words "write," "writing," "written,"
etc., when speaking of the "things" which the Nephite Records
would contain.

He speaks of writing prophets whose supposed contributions
to the plates of brass predicted numerous details of Jesus'
lifetime/acts.

If this has nothing to do with "texts," then I do not think
I'm the only reader/writer who has been fooled into thinking
that it is a textual problem being addressed, and by Nephi,
given a textual solution.

But, I'm willing to listen to Bro. Antley's views, that it
is not excised writings we should think about, but rather,
excised interpretations.

Which LDS General Authorities have spoken against the textual
excisions? Should we assume that the PGP JST passages were NOT
included in the "five books of Moses" on the brass plates?

UD

[smordecai]

Just a comment concerning Judaism today vs. 2000 years ago. Read Maimonides' 13 articles of Faith. For this he was excommunicated by several Rabbinic schools.  He is responsible for introducing the god of the philosophers into modern Judaism.

[Uncle Dale]

smordecai, on 28 November 2010 - 03:53 PM, said:

Just a comment concerning Judaism today vs. 2000 years ago. Read Maimonides' 13 articles of Faith. For this he was excommunicated by several Rabbinic schools.  He is responsible for introducing the god of the philosophers into modern Judaism.

I have several dozen books on Judaism in my library --
and they all seem to say pretty much the same -- that
the modern religion developed out of the ancient religion,
with some changes along the way, various divisions, etc.

I am not so much interested in cataloging those changes,
as I'm interested in knowing what the religion of Elizabeth
and Mary was 2000 years ago.

The Christian Bible depicts these two Jews as orthodox --
so, if we can roughly determine what their religious
practices and professions consisted of, we can at least
nail down what normative Judaism was for Christian writers
at the end of the first century.

Working backwards (or forwards) from that determination,
perhaps we might ask ourselves when was the very last
time YHWH sanctified a Day of Atonement, by making His
presence available to the High Priest in the Holy of Holies.

One Christian commentator I happened upon stated that
"at the crucifixion" the veil of the temple "was rent,"
and thereafter God never answered a Jewish prayer.

I doubt most Mormons would go so far as to agree to
that sort of statement --- but, on the other hand,
the LDS must believe that Judaism became "apostate"
at about that point in history.

I'd like to hear more on the subject.

UD

[Joseph Antley]

Uncle Dale, on 28 November 2010 - 04:15 PM, said:

I doubt most Mormons would go so far as to agree to
that sort of statement --- but, on the other hand,
the LDS must believe that Judaism became "apostate"
at about that point in history.

Israelite religion had reached the road of apostasy long before the days of Jesus.

[Uncle Dale]

Joseph Antley, on 28 November 2010 - 05:09 PM, said:

Israelite religion had reached the road of apostasy long before the days of Jesus.

Thus my question regarding Elizabeth and Mary.

Supposing they were living an apostate religion at the times
of their conceptions, are we also to believe that they raised
their sons in that same abomination -- disobeying God's commandments?

When they took sacrifices to the temple, did God reject them?

When the High Priest annually went into the holy of holies,
was Israel's sin held against her, with no remission?

Going back from Mary and Elizabeth, how far must we backtrack
before finding an Israelite who obeyed the commandments? Lehi?

UD

[Joseph Antley]

Uncle Dale, on 28 November 2010 - 05:45 PM, said:

Thus my question regarding Elizabeth and Mary.

Supposing they were living an apostate religion at the times
of their conceptions, are we also to believe that they raised
their sons in that same abomination -- disobeying God's commandments?

Do you think that that is how Latter-day Saints think, or that that is how we believe that God thinks?

Quote

When they took sacrifices to the temple, did God reject them?

My educated guess is that no, he did not.

Quote

When the High Priest annually went into the holy of holies,
was Israel's sin held against her, with no remission?

I can't begin to guess the specifics of how God viewed Israel as a whole.

Quote

Going back from Mary and Elizabeth, how far must we backtrack
before finding an Israelite who obeyed the commandments? Lehi?

Obedience to the commandments? There were always Jews who obeyed the commandments from Moses to Peter, as best they understood them. The rich man whom Jesus asks to follow him, for example. Apostasy does not mean that people are completely disobedient to the commandments.

The understanding I've come to is that there were inevitably always apostate strands in ancient religion -- the question must then be, how apostate were they?

[Uncle Dale]

Joseph Antley, on 28 November 2010 - 05:55 PM, said:

...the question must then be, how apostate were they?

For Nephi, 0.00% -- he had the brass plates, with all
the commandments on them. All he had to do was to obey
them. He had the perfect doctrine, and once he completed
the temple, he had the perfect institution by which to
obey the entire Levitical law.

It is still a bit disconcerting to think that John and
Jesus were raised in an apostate religion.

On the other hand, if the God of Israel was able to
forgive the Covenent People's transgressions, it seems
to me that they were without sin for at least one day
out of the year. If so, then the LDS leaders must be
able to provide at least an approximate date by which
God no longer provided them that annual remission.

UD

[TAO]

Uncle Dale, on 28 November 2010 - 05:45 PM, said:

When they took sacrifices to the temple, did God reject them?

God doesn't fault those who make ignorant mistakes, so no, he didn't reject it.

Edited by TAO, 28 November 2010 - 06:18 PM.

[Joseph Antley]

Uncle Dale, on 28 November 2010 - 06:09 PM, said:

If so, then the LDS leaders must be
able to provide at least an approximate date by which
God no longer provided them that annual remission.

Why?

[TAO]

Uncle Dale, on 28 November 2010 - 06:09 PM, said:

If so, then the LDS leaders must be
able to provide at least an approximate date by which
God no longer provided them that annual remission.

One thing I have noticed about God is that he doesn't answer questions you don't sincerely desire yourself.

So asking the LDS leaders for the answer won't work probably.  They have more important questions to ask.

You should ask for the answer, and God will decide whether to give it to you.

Edited by TAO, 28 November 2010 - 06:20 PM.

[volgadon]

Oh, that is easy. Kaf-Bet of Iyyar in the 4th year of the reign of Herod Agrippa, somewhere between 11:00 and 17:43. A Teusday, IIRC. Now that this is out of the way, we can come up with another baroque masterpiece of hairsplitting casuistic criticism against the Mormons.

[Uncle Dale]

Joseph Antley, on 28 November 2010 - 06:19 PM, said:

Why?

Because they are the purported leaders of the one true religion,
blessed with the continual presence of the Holy Ghost and
spiritual discernment of unrighteousness. Plus they are in
constant contact with God via latter day revelation.

If they cannot tell us, within at least a thousand years, when
God ceased to make His holy presence abide among the Covenant
People, then to which better prophets might we turn?

Or -- perhaps the answer is that God has never withdrawn
his presence from those who earnestly seek Him -- and the
Covenant relationship with Israel evolved, rather than
being abrogated.

Perhaps acceptance in God's eyes is not measured by a perfect
obedience to all the commandments ever given -- but is extended
by grace, through faith, in the midst of imperfect religion.

Perhaps the Gospel has never been articulated by man in its
perfection and fulness, because the Kingdom of Heaven is
not subject to human expression and human understanding.

And perhaps there never was a Nephi, nor any brass plates,
and we waste our precious time worrying over fictions.

UD

[volgadon]

Quote

Nephi repeatedly uses the words "write," "writing," "written,"
etc., when speaking of the "things" which the Nephite Records
would contain.

He speaks of writing prophets whose supposed contributions
to the plates of brass predicted numerous details of Jesus'
lifetime/acts.

If this has nothing to do with "texts," then I do not think
I'm the only reader/writer who has been fooled into thinking
that it is a textual problem being addressed, and by Nephi,
given a textual solution.

But, I'm willing to listen to Bro. Antley's views, that it
is not excised writings we should think about, but rather,
excised interpretations.

Yet Nephi also says that the book proceedeth out of the mouth of the Jew.
Like I said, try Jafe's book.

[Uncle Dale]

volgadon, on 28 November 2010 - 06:35 PM, said:

...try Jafe's book.

When time allows.

So very often, when outsiders come here with questions
regarding the Book of Mormon, the threads devolve into
useless arguments.

I'm encouraged that mine are generally taken seriously,
and that participants honestly attempt to communicate
their best-thought-out contributions.

Even if we often do not agree, I know of nowhere else
where such discussions can take place -- and occasional
progress made in understanding.

I find that gratifying.

UD

[Robert F. Smith]

Uncle Dale, on 27 November 2010 - 11:24 PM, said:

The "Old Testament" is obviously unchanged, except for minor textual corruptions,
and the Jews of 2010 read and interpret it very much like the Jews of 2000 years ago.

I know that the LDS love to point out passages in the Hebrew Bible that they
view as supportive of the "antiquity of the gospel" and the "7 dispensations;"
but the rest of the Bible-reading world does not agree with that notion.

There has been a tremendous amount of scholarship published on the subject
of the Hebrew Bible (and the LXX) in the past couple of centuries, and the
jist of it all argues against the Jews and Israelites of antiquity being
full-blown Christians (like Alma, Samuel the Lamanite, etc.).

However, if you restrict your analysis to the "New Testament," you might well
argue that doctrines such as no-infant-baptism were inherent in the gospel
of 2000 years ago, no matter what changes (or lack thereof) have been inflicted
upon the NT texts.

Still -- until I hear your ideas spoken from the podium at General Conference,
I'll assume that they remain just that -- ideas and not potential doctrine.

I am enough of a restorationist myself, to deeply suspect the Christian Bible
as written -- and certainly as taught by creedal Christianity. I suspect that
if we could get into a time machine and go back to the days of the very first
Jesus-followers, we would there encounter texts somewhat different from the
modern canon, and teachings very different from modern mainstream Christianity.
UD

Dale,
Here and elsewhere in this thread, you raise questions which require familiarity with what is in fact being said by mainstream scholars on such matters.  I normally recommend that interested parties without systematic, professional training at least read relevant magazines (available online) such as Bible Review (BR), though there are many others.

For example, the Jewish editor of BR, Herschel Shanks, has pointed out that the Judaism and Christianity of today are very different than they were 2,000 years ago:

"Today, a more nuanced understanding of the two religions is fast gaining ground: that modern Judaism and Christianity are parallel heritors of a many-faceted ancient Judaism." (BAR, 11/1 [Feb 1995], 2).

Later Shanks again comments on this issue (re Gabriele Boccacini, "Multiple Judaisms," BR, 11/1, pp. 38-41, 46), on page 40,

"Boccacini describes the emergence of a more nuanced understanding of these two great faiths: that modern Judaism and Christianity emerged from ancient Judaism--fraternal twins born of the same womb."

Above you seem to agree that the textual canon and teachings would vary from modern mainstream Christianity, but later in this thread you seem to disagree.

However, if you want to understand what the world of Elizabeth & Mary was like, you will have to read the English biblical text systematically and accept that their world was very alien from ours in both culture and language. Understanding what this means cannot be had on the cheap.  It requires sustained effort over a long period of time.  Notions of apostasy of Jews (which you mention below) is not a concept used by scholars, both because it is not in keeping with the unconditional covenant of Abraham (see Romans 11), and because it constitutes a value judgment which scholars generally shy away from.  The Jewish people are a community which certainly retains its biblical promise in both Bible and Book of Mormon, aside from the fact that they are yet with us as a powerful, unavoidable fact of life.  Moreover, the Jewish rabbis have always said that the reason for the Diaspora was disobedience by the Jewish people.

Book of Mormon prophecy must be understood in the same sense as Bible prophecy, i.e., if the Book of Mormon names Mary and Jesus long before they are born then bear in mind that the Bible does the same with Cyrus and Josiah.  Indeed, if you could read Hebrew, you would see that the prophecies of Jesus are specifically contained in the OT -- where they are masked by mistranslation.  Hint:  When the temple priest Simeon takes the baby Jesus in hand for the formal redemption of the firstborn ceremony in Luke 2:27-35, he fully recognizes the name and meaning of "Jesus" in the OT context and says so!!

Here is my paper on "Peshat - Plainness" online at http://www.scribd.co...eshat-Plainness so that you can see all that it entails.  The reason why it is so important to consult with non-Mormon scholars on all these matters is so that no accusation of bias will be casually thrown around -- as it so often is.  In addition, these are not matters which are likely to be addressed by LDS General Authorities, nor should we expect them to.

Edited by Robert F. Smith, 29 November 2010 - 11:17 AM.

[Kevin Christensen]

Uncle Dale, on 28 November 2010 - 02:30 PM, said:

Yes -- but I am speaking of what was supposedly on the "plates of brass,"
--- wherein there was reportedly documentation that "surely did shew unto
the prophets of old, all things concerning" the advent of Jesus, his name,
his mother's name, all the details of his passion, etc.

If the "plates of brass" contained all of this proto-Christianity, and
the biblical texts of the DSS do NOT contain such information, then does
Barker cite Zenock, Neum, Zenos, etc. as proof that such details were
excised from the early Bible?

UD

It makes a great deal of difference in what one supposes were on the plates of brass, as well as whether or one one recognizes that there were different versions of Hebrew texts, different texts, and different schools of thought valuing different texts and versions for different reasons. Barker describes several "long exile" texts and traditions, held by those who felt excluded from the rebuilt temple and who looked forward to the restoration of the true temple.

Look at a specific detail of interest regarding the name "Mary. " It helps to recognize that Hebrew lacks consonants, that editors later added pointing to control they wanted texts to be read, and that the Wisdom style made use of punning and similar sounds to convey meanings, for instance "Servant" and "Lamb" have the same consonants.  Consider this, from a 2009 overview of Temple Theology by Margaret Barker.

Quote

Recall now that damaged text in Psalm 110, which describes the birth of the son of
God in the holy of holies. One of the words that does not fit easily into the text,
though the sense is reasonable, is the word ‘womb’. ‘I have begotten you from the
womb with dew.’. There were some early Christians known to Bishop Eusebius in
Palestine in the early fourth century, who read that word ‘womb’ differently. They
said it was ‘Mary’. This is a perfectly possible reading if they were reading the
archaic Hebrew script. The word for ‘womb’ and the word for ‘Mary’ look very
similar.

No matter who had the correct understanding, this shows that Hebrew speaking
Christians linked this verse about the birth of the divine son in the holy of holies to
the birth of Jesus from Mary, and this is what John had seen too: the woman
clothed with the sun giving birth in the holy of holies. The Lady had returned to
the Christian temple. When the emperor Justinan built his great church in
Jerusalem, clearly intended to be the new temple, it was dedicated, in 543CE, to
Mary.
What is all this saying? That roots of Christianity lie far deeper than the teachings
of Jesus. He was restoring the ancient faith of the Jerusalem temple. Evidence
from the Dead Sea Scrolls shows that the first Christians had much in common
with the Qumran community. The Hebrew of their Isaiah scroll was different from
the text we have today. Isaiah’s prophecy of Immanuel in our Bible begins with
‘Ask a sign of the LORD your God’ (Isa. 7.11) but in the great Qumran scroll,
which is the only pre-Christian Hebrew text of that section of Isaiah, it says ‘Ask a
sign from the Mother of the LORD your God.’ The Mother of the LORD? Experts
amend the text, because the ‘Mother of the LORD’ has, they say, no meaning. The
evidence must be wrong.

Interesting.

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

[LeSellers]

Kevin Christensen, on 29 November 2010 - 02:13 PM, said:

It helps to recognize that Hebrew lacks consonants, ...

I'm sure you meant "... lacks vowels ...".

Lehi

[Uncle Dale]

Kevin Christensen, on 29 November 2010 - 02:13 PM, said:

‘Ask a sign from the Mother of the LORD your God.’

Well then, perhaps the brass plates were correct --

Or, if that fulness was not on the brass plates, it was
surely on the small plates of Nephi:

"And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest,
is the mother of God, after the manner of flesh."


Were the followers of David Whitmer the only Restoration
group who retained the reading of the 1830 edition?

UD

[CV75]

Uncle Dale, on 27 November 2010 - 10:56 PM, said:

Exactly WHAT did the "great and abominable church" remove from the "record of the Jews" as it was available in the days when Jesus and his first disciples walked the earth?

Sorry for jumping in late here:

I would suggest the many unique things that are in the Book of Mormon are those that were taken out of the Bible by the great and abominable church. to lead people astray, not those things that naturally or accidentally deteriorated over the years.

1 Nephi 13: 23, 24 mentions that the following were removed: covenants and prophecies, the fullness of the Gospel (more particularly by record of the twelve apostles, which had to have been created within a short time span)--fewer writings than the brass plates, but still of great worth to the Gentiles. I find it interesting that it says “twelve apostles” so it may refer to something that Judas attested to before his downfall, unless, since this and the next chapter pertain to the Gospel among the Gentiles, it refers to things written by the later twelve apostles in their ministry among the Gentiles.

The rest of Chapter 13 brings up many plain and precious particulars that aren’t spelled out so clearly in the Bible: the specific mention of the formation of the great and abominable church and its removal of plain and precious things; its intentional perversion of the covenants; that the Gentile nations would have a corrupt or incomplete record; that the Gentiles would cross the waters and the rest of that prophesy with regards to their role in leading the Restoration, bringing the Gospel to the remnant of Israel and the raising up Zion; the coming forth of the Book of Mormon with its plain and precious explanations of doctrine; other books, with their unique contents on making the doctrine plain and precious; some detail on the Lord’s plans for the Gentiles in the latter days. Both prophecies and covenants that involve the Gentiles are addressed in these verses.

Chapter 14 lists other plain and precious things that seem to have been removed from the Bible: The Gentiles’ adoption and blessing on the promised land; expounding the idea of two churches only and how this plays out in the last days; yet other scriptures to come forth (presumably including latter-day revelations).

The record of Jesus’ visit to the Nephites includes several plain and precious items not found in the Bible: He attests to the accuracy of the record and makes sure the record up to that time was complete; he gives significant detail on the New Jerusalem (also provided in the Book of Ether) and His plans for the Gentiles (3 Nephi Chapters 20, 21); regarding covenants, clear demonstration of how He gave the power to baptize and give the gift of the Holy Ghost; the treatment of the covenant of the sacrament is detailed; clear instruction on the name of the Church; many others.

The Book of Mormon makes many plain and precious things clearer.