Was BOM wrong?

[Calm]

The fact that Jews had good reason to hate Christians from the fourth century on does not demonstrate that Jewish anti-Christian polemics did not originate a century or two before the Christians had the political power and opportunity to persecute and abuse the Jews. Nor does it demonstrate that Jews did not persecute and abuse Christians when they had the opportunity--which was relatively rarely, since they were generally in the minority and had limited political power. On the other hand, look, for example, at the massacre of the Christians in Najran by the Jewish Yemenite King Dhu Nuwas around 520. He killed everyone who would not renounce Christianity.

So once again it is proven that it is usually men themselves (and women) when they get into power positions, not religions, that abuse that power.

Out of curiosity, has there ever been a minority religious group (or any other group for that matter) who were abused as a minority who once they got hold of some significant power, didn't have some members who used that power to abuse others outside their group?

[volgadon]

Well, I never said otherwise. I agree. All Christians are minim by Rabbinic interpretation, but not all minim were Christians. On the other hand, all minim--including Christian minim--are cursed in the Birkat Minim. That's all I ever said.

Perhaps I misunderstood your point, but you seemed to be pointing to Birkat ha-Minim as evidence of Jews initiating aggression and persecution of Christians before experience of such from the latter. That there was some form of a curse against heretics, apostates, and others endangering the community is a given. This was a feature of almost all forms of 1st century Judaism (including Christianity) as far as I can tell. We have the the polemics in Mwoe statements of Matthew 23, which would either predate Yavneh, or have been written at the same time. Would you care to count how many insults are in it? If a curse which does not specify Christians, to whcih Christians aren't central but peripheral, is given as an example of Jewish persecution of Christianity, then what does that make the polemics in Matthew?

Nor does it demonstrate that Jews did not persecute and abuse Christians when they had the opportunity--which was relatively rarely, since they were generally in the minority and had limited political power. On the other hand, look, for example, at the massacre of the Christians in Najran by the Jewish Yemenite King Dhu Nuwas around 520. He killed everyone who would not renounce Christianity.

And we also have the examples of numerous Khazar kings who did not persecute the substantial Christian minority of their kingdom on grounds of their Christianity.

[Bill Hamblin]

Perhaps I misunderstood your point, but you seemed to be pointing to Birkat ha-Minim as evidence of Jews initiating aggression and persecution of Christians before experience of such from the latter. That there was some form of a curse against heretics, apostates, and others endangering the community is a given. This was a feature of almost all forms of 1st century Judaism (including Christianity) as far as I can tell. We have the the polemics in Mwoe statements of Matthew 23, which would either predate Yavneh, or have been written at the same time. Would you care to count how many insults are in it? If a curse which does not specify Christians, to whcih Christians aren't central but peripheral, is given as an example of Jewish persecution of Christianity, then what does that make the polemics in Matthew?

Technically speaking, nearly all first century Christians were, in fact, Jews. This was an internal feud between Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah and Jews who did not. There were Gentiles among the first century Messianic Jews (as there were Gentiles among the first century anti-Messianic Jews), but the issue was essentially an inter-Jewish feud. What is today perceived as anti-Jewish statements in the New Testament in fact are not anti-Jewish statements, since the writers of those statements were themselves Jews. These were theological disputes between rival Jewish groups. This is not an unusual phenomena in Judaism, and goes on with great gusto today, sometimes culminating in violence, as with the assassination of Rabin. New Testament Christian polemics against Jews was, in fact, Messianic Jewish polemic against non-Messianic Jews.

My point was simply that anti-Christian persecution by Jews preceded anti-Jewish persecutions by Christians. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament demonstrates this. Therefore, anti-Jewish persecution by Christians was not the cause of anti-Christian sentiments in Judaism. For example, anti-Jewish persecutions by Christians was not a major issue behind the anti-Christian aspects of the Babylonian Talmud, since it was written under the Sassanids in Mesopotamia, where Christians were a minority with limited political power. From the Jewish side, the core issue is theological. Rabbinic Jews viewed Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah as heretics and blasphemers for a number of reasons, including: perceived polytheism, Jesus claiming to be God, Jesus claiming to be the Messiah, Jesus as a false prophet etc. Many early Jews viewed Jesus as a magician who worked miracles by demonic means. The Talmud describes the execution of Jesus as the perfectly legitimate execution of a blasphemer. (Schaffer, Jesus in the Talmud). The point is that anti-Christian sentiment among Jews preceded Christian persecution of Jews. It began during the lifetime of Jesus, and manifest itself in many different ways. Messianic Jews at that time were in a small minority and were in no position to persecute non-Messianic Jews.

And we also have the examples of numerous Khazar kings who did not persecute the substantial Christian minority of their kingdom on grounds of their Christianity.

Since I said many or some, (not most or all Jews) sometimes persecuted others when they had the chance, the fact that many or some Jews (not all) sometimes did not persecute others when they had the chance does not contradict my claim any more than the fact that many medieval Christian kings treated Jews well does not contradict the fact that many Christian kings persecuted Jews.

[Deborah]

I am very interested in the verse in 2 Nephi concerning the changing of the Lamanites skin color to that which would be white and delightsome. The 1830 edition of the BOM has white and delightsome in the verse, which connects contextually to the other verses in the BOM that show that the verse was referring to a "skin color" instead of a 'state of spiritual purity."

I have no idea what you are talking about. This is how the verse reads in the official church website in 2Nephi 5:21

And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

[Deborah]

Without turning to a belief in the messiah (which is what Christ is), none of the aforementioned events would have taken place.

This is an interesting history you presented. My question though is does believing in the Messiah necessarily have anything to do with Christ? We know that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah. However, don't the Jews still hold a belief in the Messiah to come?

[Calm]

The 1830 edition of the BOM has white and delightsome in the verse,

This change actually first appeared in the 1840 edition, and was probably made by Joseph Smith:

• 2 Nephi 30:6 (1830 edition, italics added): "...they shall be a white and a delightsome people."
• 2 Nephi 30:6 (1840 edition, italics added): "...they shall be a pure and a delightsome people."

The 1837 edition was used for the European editions, which were in turn used as the basis for the 1879 and 1920 editions, so the change was lost until the 1981 (current) edition. This particular correction is part of the changes referred to in the note "About this Edition" printed in the introductory pages:

"Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith."

It

[Calm]

This is an interesting history you presented. My question though is does believing in the Messiah necessarily have anything to do with Christ? We know that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah. However, don't the Jews still hold a belief in the Messiah to come?

I see this as similar to the claims we believe in another Jesus because our understanding of his is fundamentally different in a few areas, though not in all and not in the most crucial one where he is our Lord and Redeemer.

Now I don't know the specifics of the various beliefs in the Messiah, so it is possible that the difference is significant enough to state that the Messiah in their understanding is not significantly related to the role Christ is actually playing and will play, but if the Messiah belief is based on the OT, then it seems to me that it is likely that their believing in the Messiah has everything to do with Christ and his 2nd coming even if most Jews would see it differently (and may even be offended that we make a connection they refuse to make....much like certain EVs have gotten offended when we claim 'our Jesus' is the same as 'their Jesus').

[volgadon]

Technically speaking, nearly all first century Christians were, in fact, Jews. This was an internal feud between Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah and Jews who did not. There were Gentiles among the first century Messianic Jews (as there were Gentiles among the first century anti-Messianic Jews), but the issue was essentially an inter-Jewish feud. What is today perceived as anti-Jewish statements in the New Testament in fact are not anti-Jewish statements, since the writers of those statements were themselves Jews. These were theological disputes between rival Jewish groups. This is not an unusual phenomena in Judaism, and goes on with great gusto today, sometimes culminating in violence, as with the assassination of Rabin. New Testament Christian polemics against Jews was, in fact, Messianic Jewish polemic against non-Messianic Jews.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Anti-Jewish polemic in Matthew is merely inter-Jewish, but Jewish polemic of the same era against Christians is anti-Christian?

[Bill Hamblin]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Anti-Jewish polemic in Matthew is merely inter-Jewish, but Jewish polemic of the same era against Christians is anti-Christian?

No. I neither said, nor implied that. Anti-Christian polemic in the first century was against Jews who had accepted Jesus as the Messiah, and hence were viewed as heretics and blasphemers. However, at some point there was the "parting of the ways" between the two groups, probably in the late first and early second centuries. When the Messianic Jews had been expelled form the synagogues and formally cursed as heretics/minim in the Amida, the schism had been firmly established. This process began in the New Testament period, and continued on into the early second century.

Jesus, Peter, Paul, James, etc. certainly all saw themselves as Jews. Authors like Polycarp, Justin and Irenaeus no longer saw themselves as Jews. Jews and Christians were something completely different by the mid-second century.

[Robert F. Smith]

As I noted, the BOM says explicitly that the Jews must believe that Jesus is the Messiah (not that there will be some other Messiah) before the prophesied gathering of Israel. The texts seem absolutely clear on the matter.

Are you sure, Bill?

Are the texts clearly sequential in chronology? Do they cohere with all other texts of importance?

Quite aside from the empty meaning your interpretation gives to Apostle Orson Hyde's dedication of the Land to the Gathering of Israel, followed by the physical gathering of the Jews and the eventual establishment of a robust State of Israel, you might want to consider the differing sequence in Zechariah 13 & 14, along with D&C 45, which have the Jews surprised at the appearance of Jesus on the Day of the Lord at a deep cleft in the Mount of Olives (where the Orson Hyde Garden and Monument are located). Only then do they understand that they crucified their Lord and Savior. Then they can sing Ma'oz, Zur, Yeshuati. If on the other hand you were correct, Bill, the Jews would already be converted and this could never happen.

D&C 45:48 And then shall he Lord set his foot upon this mount, and it shall cleave in twain, and the earth shall tremble . . . = Zech 14:4

45:51 And then shall the Jews look upon me and say: What are these wounds in thine hands and in thy feet? = Zech 13:6

45:52 These wounds are the wounds with which I was wounded in the house of my friends. I am he who wsa lifted up, I am Jesus that was crucified.

45:53 And then shall they weep because of their iniquities; then shall they lament because they persecuted their king.