New Article On Interpreter

[Brant Gardner]

thanks Brant, you have touched on something that has for long been bothering me about the BOM: what is the role of the temple for the Nephites (given that i can't find any record of temple ritual ceremony, like in the OT)?

[ sorry if i derailled the thread, just had to ask.]

That is probably a great theme for a paper. I haven't done the work on it. I know that Gordon Thomasson is working on a paper/book on the Jewish festivals that can be discerned from the hints in the text. I suspect that we might be able to do some of the same for temples. The assumption would be that there would be similar sacrificial practices, but that some things would be different, both because the Nephite practices would follow pre-Exilic ideas and that there was no hereditary priesthood. So I wouldn't expect a precise replication of Hebrew practice .

If you have not yet done it, read Don Bradley's "Piercing the Veil" from the most recent FAIR Conference.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Brant Gardner

[Daniel Peterson]

It would be great to get something from Gordon for Interpreter. We'd be delighted to receive a submission from him.

[Rivers]

Great article.

What exactly is happening with FARMS at this point?

Edited August 12, 2012 by Rivers

[Bill Hamblin]

Great article.

What exactly is happening with FARMS at this point?

An excellent question. We'd all like to know the answer.

[David T]

Has MI expressed any indication to stop the JBM&ORS? 'cause the only thing they put out any notice about was the Review. Are there indications, from anywhere, that any other publication is planned to change?

Although, if Interpreter 'converts' all the people who otherwise would have contributed quality scholastic Book of Mormon material to the JBM&ORS...

Edited August 13, 2012 by David T

[Bill Hamblin]

JBM&ORS will continue.

[ANACO]

I don't understand the logic of the article. The Nephites apostates were called dissenters, when they dissented away to the Lamanites. Then they stirred up the Lamanites to attack the Nephites. This pattern began before the "Lehites" arrived at the Land of Promise. You know, Nephi being bound by his brethren, chased out of the land of their first inheritance in the land of promise, after the death of Lehi, etc.

Yet, the article is trying to prove a Nephite learned from a Mesoamerican culture about apostasy, yet they dissented, not to the Mesoamerica culture, but to the Lamanites - who were not the Maya, any more than were the Nephites. "Hey Nephite," said a Maya. "Go to the Lamanites after attending our Maya courses on Apostasy 101. We don't want you."

That's interesting. It contradicts the text. So what's the point of the article? To prove the veracity of the Book of Mormon, or to promote a Mesoamerica culture within the Book of Mormon with an argument contrary to its text?

Thank you for the offer a thesaurus. Would any of you like a copy of the Book of Mormon?

Edited August 15, 2012 by ANACO

[Hamilton Porter]

So according to the article, King Benjamin learned this of what he spoke:

(I) have not sought gold nor silver nor any manner of riches of you; Neither have I suffered that ye should be confined in dungeons, nor that ye should make slaves one of another, nor that ye should murder, or plunder, or steal, or commit adultery; nor even have I suffered that ye should commit any manner of wickedness

Because, according to the article:

Such descriptions make little sense unless the conditions he described as absent under his reign were actually common elsewhere. Benjamin seems to be contrasting his reign with a well-known set of traits from the surrounding [mesoamerican] cultures.

Interesting. And King Benjamin also learned this alleged "New World version of the Priesthood" from the same Mesoamerican models, because the Mesoamericans were wicked by demonstrating to the Nephites that new world priests were not to be dependent upon donated goods, but were to work with their own hands".

Having it both (contradictory) ways really solidifies the argument for a Mesoamerica location.

To me a better context would be Deut 17, where a lot of the material for King Benjamin's speech is found:

¹⁸When he has taken the throne of his kingdom, he shall have a copy of this law written for him in the presence of the levitical priests. ¹⁹It shall remain with him and he shall read in it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, diligently observing all the words of this law and these statutes, ²⁰neither exalting himself above other members of the community nor turning aside from the commandment, either to the right or to the left, so that he and his descendants may reign long over his kingdom in Israel.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Hamilton Porter

[Rivers]

I don't understand the logic of the article. The Nephites apostates were called dissenters, when they dissented away to the Lamanites. Then they stirred up the Lamanites to attack the Nephites. This pattern began before the "Lehites" arrived at the Land of Promise. You know, Nephi being bound by his brethren, chased out of the land of their first inheritance in the land of promise, after the death of Lehi, etc.

Yet, the article is trying to prove a Nephite learned from a Mesoamerican culture about apostasy, yet they dissented, not to the Mesoamerica culture, but to the Lamanites - who were not the Maya, any more than were the Nephites. "Hey Nephite," said a Maya. "Go to the Lamanites after attending our Maya courses on Apostasy 101. We don't want you."

That's interesting. It contradicts the text. So what's the point of the article? To prove the veracity of the Book of Mormon, or to promote a Mesoamerica culture within the Book of Mormon with an argument contrary to its text?

Thank you for the offer a thesaurus. Would any of you like a copy of the Book of Mormon?

I don't think the purpose of the article is to prove the veracity of anything. Mormon scholars like to start with the assumption that the Book of Mormon is historical and try to make sense of The Book of Mormon text from that perspective.

Also, the article does acknowledge that the Lamanites were not Maya. The proposition is that the Lehites participated in Mayan culture.

[robuchan]

The apostates of the BOM seem pretty obvious to me. You have your New Testament Law of Moses, Christ rejecters. You have your Old Testament idol worshippers. You have your Catholics. You have your 19th century Atheists. And you have opponents to the US constitution.

But I guess this is a good start to identify some Mesoamerican parallels.

[Brant Gardner]

The apostates of the BOM seem pretty obvious to me. You have your New Testament Law of Moses, Christ rejecters. You have your Old Testament idol worshippers. You have your Catholics. You have your 19th century Atheists. And you have opponents to the US constitution.

But I guess this is a good start to identify some Mesoamerican parallels.

Perhaps it would be obvious that there would be apostates. That isn't the question. The historical problem is the nature of the apostasy. In any historical situation, apostasies occur in relationship to other available ideas. It is always possible that an apostasy would come from a complete rejection of any belief system. Opposition is a pretty standard mental function.

However, when we have multiple apostasies occurring in the same way without a complete rejection, the historical problem becomes one of attempting to explain how those apostasies happened to take those particular forms. None of the Nephite apostasies advocate full rejection of Nephite religion and adoption of a foreign religion. They all retain certain aspects, and it is that set of commonalities that really beg for an answer.

So, yes, you are correct that there are apostasies from the Law of Moses or from Christianity. That isn't the issue. The issue is the nature of the apostasy. In any of the cases from the Old Testament or post-NT Christianity, there are ways to trace the influences that affected the directions of the apostasy. Hence the search for those tendencies for Nephite apostasy.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Brant Gardner

[Bill Hamblin]

The next one is up.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/book-review-temple-themes-in-the-book-of-moses-by-jeffrey-m-bradshaw/

[Bill Hamblin]

““I Have Revealed Your Name”: The Hidden Temple in John 17″ has just appeared in Interpreter. It can be read or downloaded here.

http://www.mormonint...ple-in-john-17/

An mp3 recording can be heard here.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/hamblin_v1-i1-2012-pg61-89-AUDIO.mp3

Edited August 24, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[volgadon]

““I Have Revealed Your Name”: The Hidden Temple in John 17″ has just appeared in Interpreter. It can be read or downloaded here.

http://www.mormonint...ple-in-john-17/

An mp3 recording can be heard here.

Is that more or less what you presented in Dublin?

[Bill Hamblin]

Is that more or less what you presented in Dublin?

No this was a paper I gave in London a year ago. My Dublin paper in may was on the temple in the Qur'an.

[Nunya D. Bidness]

Excellent work. I also quite enjoyed the recording of your HP group lesson that you posted. I have to admit, though, that some of the comments proved frustrating as they added little to the discussion and served largely to eat up time that you could have used to examine the sacrament prayers in more detail. Anyway, thanks for posting that.

[zerinus]

Yet, the article is trying to prove a Nephite learned from a Mesoamerican culture about apostasy, yet they dissented, not to the Mesoamerica culture, but to the Lamanites - who were not the Maya, any more than were the Nephites. "Hey Nephite," said a Maya. "Go to the Lamanites after attending our Maya courses on Apostasy 101. We don't want you."

Hey, these were posted weeks ago, I don't know how I missed that!

Okay, I have gone back and given you rep points all the way through.

[zerinus]

““I Have Revealed Your Name”: The Hidden Temple in John 17″ has just appeared in Interpreter. It can be read or downloaded here.

http://www.mormonint...ple-in-john-17/

Interesting. I haven't read the article all the way through yet; but a quick look at the opening paragraphs suggests that you may be reading too much into the phrase, “my Father's house”. The word house in Hebrew literature can have other meanings, such as a household (including posterity and progenitors) as in the following verses:

Joshua 24:

15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

2 Samuel 14:

9 And the woman of Tekoah said unto the king, My lord, O king, the iniquity be on me, and on my father’s house: and the king and his throne be guiltless.

2 Samuel 24:

17 And David spake unto the Lord when he saw the angel that smote the people, and said, Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly: but these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me, and against my father’s house.

1 Chronicles 21:

17 And David said unto God, Is it not I that commanded the people to be numbered? even I it is that have sinned and done evil indeed; but as for these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, O Lord my God, be on me, and on my father’s house; but not on thy people, that they should be plagued.

And ultimately even a whole tribe, as in “house of Israel” for example. If I remember correctly from somewhere, Joseph Smith rendered John 14:2 as, “In my Father’s kingdom are many mansions,” which makes better sense in English, because a mansion is typically bigger than a house. It is like saying, "There are many football fields in my tennis court," which doesn't make sense. If something is as big as a football field, then it it can't be a tennis court. Likewise if something has mansions in it, then it can't be a house. To understand “house” in John 14:2 to mean a “temple,” means that you are understanding it to mean literally a house, and it doesn't make sense that there should be mansions in a house—even if that house happens to be a temple. But if you understand it to mean “kingdom” (household) as Joseph Smith does, then the problem is solved. What do you think?

P.S. The link you provided wasn't working, so I fixed it.

Edited August 25, 2012 by zerinus

[ksfisher]

And ultimately even a whole tribe, as in “house of Israel” for example. If I remember correctly from somewhere, Joseph Smith rendered John 14:2 as, “In my Father’s kingdom are many mansions,” which makes better sense in English, because a mansion is typically bigger than a house. It is like saying, "There are many football fields in my tennis court," which doesn't make sense. If something is as big as a football field, then it it can't be a tennis court. Likewise if something has mansions in it, then it can't be a house. To understand “house” in John 14:2 to mean a “temple,” means that you are understanding it to mean literally a house, and it doesn't make sense that there should be mansions in a house—even if that house happens to be a temple. But if you understand it to mean “kingdom” (household) as Joseph Smith does, then the problem is solved. What do you think?

The 1828 Webster's Dictionary gives the following as the first definition of mansion:

"1. A dwelling place, -- whether a part or whole of a house or other shelter. [Obs.] In my Father's house are many mansions. John xiv."

My personal take on that scripture is that Christ is telling us that in his Father's house there is room enough for all. We don't need to worry about there only being room for the rich or powerful, there is a place prepared for all of us. No one will be told that there is "no room in the inn."

But, the house is the temple. John saw this in Revelations when he sees that in the heavenly city that there is no temple, because the entire city is a temple.

[zerinus]

The 1828 Webster's Dictionary gives the following as the first definition of mansion:

"1. A dwelling place, -- whether a part or whole of a house or other shelter. [Obs.] In my Father's house are many mansions. John xiv."

My personal take on that scripture is that Christ is telling us that in his Father's house there is room enough for all. We don't need to worry about there only being room for the rich or powerful, there is a place prepared for all of us. No one will be told that there is "no room in the inn."

But, the house is the temple. John saw this in Revelations when he sees that in the heavenly city that there is no temple, because the entire city is a temple.

That is an obscure and obsolete meaning. The scripture in question reads:

John 14:

2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

This is what Jesus said of His disciples, who potentially run into millions or billions. If that reading of the verses (that house refers to the temple) is correct, with your definition of the word "mansion" applied, it would suggest that God has a temple in heaven that is so huge that it has billions of tiny little rooms in it, and God is going to prepare one of those tiny little rooms in His giant temple for each of His disciples, which doesn't make much sense. The reading that house = kingdom is the preferred reading in my estimation.

There are no other examples of the use of the word "mansion" in the Bible than John 14; but the word occurs in modern revelation more often, which helps to solidify its scriptural meaning:

Enos 1:

27 And I soon go to the place of my rest, which is with my Redeemer; for I know that in him I shall rest. And I rejoice in the day when my mortal shall put on immortality, and shall stand before him; then shall I see his face with pleasure, and he will say unto me: Come unto me, ye blessed, there is a place prepared for you in the mansions of my Father. Amen.

Ether 12:

32 And I also remember that thou hast said that thou hast prepared a house for man, yea, even among the mansions of thy Father, in which man might have a more excellent hope; wherefore man must hope, or he cannot receive an inheritance in the place which thou hast prepared.

34 And now I know that this love which thou hast had for the children of men is charity; wherefore, except men shall have charity they cannot inherit that place which thou hast prepared in the mansions of thy Father.

37 And it came to pass that the Lord said unto me: If they have not charity it mattereth not unto thee, thou hast been faithful; wherefore, thy garments shall be made clean. And because thou hast seen thy weakness thou shalt be made strong, even unto the sitting down in the place which I have prepared in the mansions of my Father.

D&C 59:

2 For those that live shall inherit the earth, and those that die shall rest from all their labors, and their works shall follow them; and they shall receive a crown in the mansions of my Father, which I have prepared for them.

D&C 72:

4 For he who is faithful and wise in time is accounted worthy to inherit the mansions prepared for him of my Father.

D&C 76:

111 For they shall be judged according to their works, and every man shall receive according to his own works, his own dominion, in the mansions which are prepared

D&C 81:

6 And if thou art faithful unto the end thou shalt have a crown of immortality, and eternal life in the mansions which I have prepared in the house of my Father.

D&C 98:

18 Let not your hearts be troubled; for in my Father’s house are many mansions, and I have prepared a place for you; and where my Father and I am, there ye shall be also.

D&C 106:

8 And I will give him grace and assurance wherewith he may stand; and if he continue to be a faithful witness and a light unto the church I have prepared a crown for him in the mansions of my Father. Even so. Amen.

D&C 135:

5 And it came to pass that I prayed unto the Lord that he would give unto the Gentiles grace, that they might have charity. And it came to pass that the Lord said unto me: If they have not charity it mattereth not unto thee, thou hast been faithful; wherefore thy garments shall be made clean. And because thou hast seen thy weakness, thou shalt be made strong, even unto the sitting down in the place which I have prepared in the mansions of my Father. And now I . . . bid farewell unto the Gentiles; yea, and also unto my brethren whom I love, until we shall meet before the judgment-seat of Christ, where all men shall know that my garments are not spotted with your blood. The testators are now dead, and their testament is in force.

JS-History Note:

7 “. . . The assurance that we were in the presence of an angel, the certainty that we heard the voice of Jesus, and the truth unsullied as it flowed from a pure personage, dictated by the will of God, is to me past description, and I shall ever look upon this expression of the Savior’s goodness with wonder and thanksgiving while I am permitted to tarry; and in those mansions where perfection dwells and sin never comes, I hope to adore in that day which shall never cease.”—Messenger and Advocate, vol. 1 (October 1834), pp. 14–16.

The word mansion here seems to be a metaphor for the blissful state that the righteous will dwell in when they get to heaven. I believe that it also has a literal meaning: that angels will literally live in glorious mansions in heaven. They have to live somewhere. They won't be floating on clouds with harps singing Hallelujah all the day long. They will be living in glorious mansions, as the Lord has promised them. Therefore house = kingdom makes better sense than house = temple.

[ksfisher]

That is an obscure and obsolete meaning.

I don't think that the first definition in the dictionary could be described as obscure. Using today's language, the definition is obsolete in American English. In British English, if I remember correctly from looking it up earlier today, it still can mean a block of flats.

I don't think anyone believes that in the eternities that we will each receive our own 3 bedroom apartment. The temple on earth represents the kingdom of God which is in heaven. Both kingdom and temple convey the intended meaning.

[zerinus]

I don't think that the first definition in the dictionary could be described as obscure. Using today's language, the definition is obsolete in American English. In British English, if I remember correctly from looking it up earlier today, it still can mean a block of flats.

You are referring to a very specialized British use, in which the word always occurs in plural (mansions), and is always capitalized, and preceded by a name (e.g. Carlyle Mansions; see example in Oxford and Longman dictionaries below). It has no relevance to the meaning of mansion in the context we are considering. Here are some online definitions of mansion I have found:

From Wikipedia:

A mansion is a very large sprawling dwelling house. U.S. real estate brokers define a mansion as a dwelling of over 8,000 square feet (740 m²). A traditional European mansion was defined as a house which contained a ballroom and many bedrooms. Today, however, there is no formal definition beyond being a large and well-appointed house.

From Dictionary.com:

1. a very large, impressive, or stately residence.

2. manor house.

3. Often, mansions. British. a large building with many apartments; apartment house.

4. Oriental and Medieval Astronomy. each of 28 divisions of the ecliptic occupied by the moon on successive days.

5. Archaic. an abode or dwelling place.

From World English Dictionary:

1. Also called: mansion house a large and imposing house

2. a less common word for manor house

3. archaic any residence

4. (Brit) (plural) a block of flats

5. astrology any of 28 divisions of the zodiac each occupied on successive days by the moon

From Answers^TM:

1. A large stately house.

2. A manor house.

3. Archaic. (1) A dwelling; an abode. (2) mansions A separate dwelling in a large house or structure.

4. (1) See house (sense 10). (2) Any one of the 28 divisions of the moon's monthly path.

From Merriam Webster:

1 a obsolete: the act of remaining or dwelling: stay. b archaic: dwelling, abode

2 a: (1) manor house (2) : a large imposing residence. b: a separate apartment or lodging in a large structure

3 a: house 3b. b: one of the 28 parts into which the moon's monthly course through the heavens is divided

From Longmans Dictionary:

1 a very large house: a beautiful country mansion

2 Mansions used in Britain in the names of some apartment buildings: 19 Carlyle Mansions

From the Oxford Dictionaries:

a large, impressive house.

(mansion block)

British a large block of flats.

[in names] a terrace or mansion block: Carlyle Mansions

Origin:

late Middle English (denoting the chief residence of a lord): via Old French from Latin mansio(n-) 'place where someone stays', from manere 'remain'

From Cambridge Dictionaries Online:

a very large expensive house: The street is lined with enormous mansions where the rich and famous live.

I don't think anyone believes that in the eternities that we will each receive our own 3 bedroom apartment.

I am sure. It does not mean that they will be given their own private flat in the heavenly temple either. Mansion doesn't mean a three bedroom flat. It means what those dictionaries say it does: a very large and magnificent house.

The temple on earth represents the kingdom of God which is in heaven. Both kingdom and temple convey the intended meaning.

The temple is a sacred place; but it does not represent heaven. There is a temple in heaven as well, as we know from the Revelation of John. If the temple on earth represent heaven, what does the temple in heaven represent?

Edited August 27, 2012 by zerinus

[ksfisher]

As I stated, the definition of mansion that I gave was from the 1828 edition of Websters dictionary. The first definition. I used this dictionary as it is closer in time to the translation of the KJV. If we could find a definition even closer I would accept that.

Revelation 21:22 reads, "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. (emphasis mine)

[Daniel Peterson]

Has MI expressed any indication to stop the JBM&ORS? 'cause the only thing they put out any notice about was the Review. Are there indications, from anywhere, that any other publication is planned to change?

The director of the Maxwell Institute proposed, roughly a year ago, to combine the Review, the Journal, and the once-annual Studies in the Bible and Antiquity into a single periodical.

(This would have dramatically accelerated the rather dramatic drop in the rate of annual Institute publications that had already been clearly visible: http://www.templestudy.com/2012/06/25/rise-fall-farms/ .)

The editors of the Review and the Journal didn't like the idea at all -- I don't know whether it was ever broached to the editor of Studies -- and it was dropped.

However, the editor of the Review has himself now been dropped and the Review is on indefinite hold, so there's no telling what might happen at this point.

No this was a paper I gave in London a year ago. My Dublin paper in may was on the temple in the Qur'an.

You can't have given papers in London and in Dublin. It's simply not possible. I have it on good authority from a particularly tedious critic that Mopologists like you and me never get out of Provo, and that nobody outside of Provo pays even the slightest attention to us (and, simultaneously, that you and I are objects of international derision and mockery).

Posted from my home in Orem.

[mfbukowski]

I was hoping the journal would be named something like Scriptoral Explorations and Ancient Research. I couldn't work an "M" in there, but if I did this would have been the SMEAR journal. And every article a SMEAR piece. With all of the gnashing of teeth over the Dehlin piece I got a chuckle out of the thought. As it stands I enjoy the first two entries a great deal. Thanks!

Meandering, or Musings.

I would think that "Mormon" would be an obvious choice.