Book of Moses VS Book of Abraham

[kneehigh]

Maybe the Book of Moses deleted the Gods (plural) because at the time he wrote it, Isreal had a huge problem with 'other gods' due to the whole Egypt/Caananite things going on at the time.

Instead of dealing with the stiffnecks and hardhearts and confusing the issue, Moses just went to the pure Monothiestic veiw which defined Judism ever since? I mean, there was plenty of stuff kept from Isreal due to their 'issues' with the Higher truths.

Moses main focus was bringing Isreal back to the One true God, and getting to the promised land. After his first little issue with the broken stone tablets, and returning with the Big Ten, I doubt he was in any mood to deal with the general members confusing the Polythiestic truth of the Gods of Genesis with the false gods of Egypt.

And, if Joseph Smith was such a master manipulater and liar, he could have simply gone back and changed the Book of Moses to Gods and gotten away with it. Another revelation in D&C could have cleared up that little issue, and none of us ignorant, deceived Mormons would have given it a second thought, right?

Oh, or are we going to blame the KJV use of plural nouns in Genesis with God refering to himself as "us" and "our" image on Joseph Smith as well? Yeah, Joseph sure was good to get THAT lie into the perfect, god-breathed Bible.

[Dan Vogel]

Interested parties,

Apologetics by bibliography:

"The Development of The Mormon Understanding of God:Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths" by Ari D. Bruening and David L. Paulsen, FARMS Review of Books, 13:2, 2001, pages 109-169.

This source is seriously flawed. I won

[William the Conqueror]

Also relevant to the discussion, Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God. (London: SPCK, 1992).

I don

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan writes:

You don

[noel00]

Mr McGuire, just curious , are you one of those who argue or agree with those who argue that the BOA papyri are still lost? Or we are the papyri some catalyst for a BOA given by revelation? The older I get the less awe I have for those who may have a PHd, not just LDS, its no guarantee that they can argue logically.

[juliann]

Also relevant to the discussion, Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God. (London: SPCK, 1992).

I don’t believe this is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Mosiah 15 describes modalism.

Then you need to state why. Be very specific.

[Dan Vogel]

Juliann,

Also relevant to the discussion, Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God. (London: SPCK, 1992).

I don

[PGY]

I wish I can keep up with you guys but I cant i get lazy when reading your guys stuff.... but i still read it but my mind wonders off ^^ but I do find this topic intresting. I guess its the big words you all use like those words with ism after it 0.o

O and why does this make people lose faith in the church when the only thing keeping me in is the peaceful feelings i get when i read the BOM and Bible. We all base are facts on research right? Is'nt the research of any one not 100% true but they still agree with it as if it was the complete truth because they researched it. The way I accept something is by researching and praying and when god gives me a revelation about it in its plain truth and if you think im baseing my stuff on complete feelings and find that foolish then that meens you have not felt the spirit as many of us people of this church have. I know for sure that the only reason why people joine this church is by the comfort of god wich springs out of the church that is of god that teaches his truth and his truth by his mouth comforts us because they are plaine and simple all. The words of the book of moromon and wisdom in it is not ares but his and we just restate them so that the future generation may learn from it. To hope fully prevent catastrifies. When you have the spirit of the lord with you alot of things begin to make sense. Well im done for now and im tired so ill see if any one post something argumentive about my post or nothing at all because it verged of topic heh ^^;

[Benjamin McGuire]

noel00 writes:

Mr McGuire, just curious , are you one of those who argue or agree with those who argue that the BOA papyri are still lost? Or we are the papyri some catalyst for a BOA given by revelation? The older I get the less awe I have for those who may have a PHd, not just LDS, its no guarantee that they can argue logically.

Does it matter? I don't think I fit solidly into any of those categories. In my opinion, the BoA was translated entirely through revelation. Whether the papyri were merely a catalyst, or there was a mising text is of interest, but not decisive, and having it go one way or the other would do little to alter my understanding of the text.

Ben

[Kevin Christensen]

Benjamin McGuire has already explained why Barker's view is relevant to a discussion of Abinadi's view of God. From a historicist perspective, Barker provides a context with we can compare, explore, and test the Book of Mormon. She's reconstructing pre-exilic Temple Theology, i.e., Jerusalem 600 B.C. The Book of Mormon purports to be rooted in the same time and place. How do the two pictures, based on radically different methods and sources, compare? Astonishingly well, it turns out. I've published four articles on the topic, including a new one in FRB 16-2, and continue to find it a fruitful and exciting enterprise.

I gave my take on Abinadi in a section of "Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker's Scholarship and Its Significance for Mormon Studies", FARMS Occasional Papers, n2. See the section on Theology and Paradigms.

I mentioned that Brant Gardner has spoken at FAIR in 2003 on a similar theme. See

http://www.fair-lds.org/Merchant2/merchant...D/FAIR-BG03-DVD

He has a good discussion of the differing contexts for the title "father." One of the key texts on the topic is the Dead Sea Scrolls reading of Deuteronomy 32:8-9, which describes Yahweh as a son of El Elyon (the Most High). The Book of Mormon explicitly identifies Jehovah with Jesus. An angel commends Nephi for believing in the son of the Most High. So in the Book of Mormon, Jesus/Jehovah is the son of El Elyon. Isaiah, as Ben has observed, applies the title of Everlasting Father to the "child is born" passage. Can the Everlasting Father of Heaven and Earth be both a Father and a Son? Why not? I am both a father and a son, but I'm also not my father, nor am I my son. It's not that difficult a concept. Brant's FAIR discussion is very good. Barker explains in The Great Angel that all Biblical texts distinguish between the sons of El Elyon, who are heavenly beings, and the sons of Jehovah, who are human. All of this provides a context for the way believers can approach Abinadi.

One problem with "Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths" in FRB is that it is condensed from a book length study. But I also have a copy of the long version. IMHO it is an impressive work. Apologetics by bibliography may have it's weak points. But it seemed to me that the discussion was rushing blithely along without any reference or acknowledgment that serious work on the specific topic has occured. Sort of like George D. Smith writing at length in American Apocrypha about B.H. Roberts' questions, calling for the LDS to honor Roberts by recognizing those questions, and failing to so much as reference the single most relevant paper on the topic, aptly titled, "Answering B.H. Roberts Questions," by John W. Welch. I could only conclude that Smith was not interested in answers, but in questions with which to hold belief at bay. Those who are truely interested the questions ought to know where they can find out more.

Context, as I have argued in print on several occasions (RBBM 7/2, for example), can change meaning. Dan Vogel made a similar comment in Indian Origins. Believers in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, are not just entitled to explore how historical contexts might illuminate the text, but are obligated to do so. In such a case, we are not at all obligated to defer to those who refuse to consider such contexts and accompanying illuminations.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Dan Vogel]

Ben,

It is interesting that there are those who claim that modalism is seen in the Book of Mormon. Vogel is once more looking for parallels and forcing connections.

Not just me, but others far more theologically astute than I. You sound like you already know of them.

Modalism, by its very nature implies that something comes in distinct modes. Its primary feature is that God can be any of the persons of the Godhead - the Father, the Son, the Spirit - but not at the same time. Thus, the traditional model is that the Father became the Son. The Book of Mormon teaches something quite different. Jesus is both the Father and the Son at the same time.

The key feature of modalism is that it does not distinguish between the

[enummaelish]

Dan,

I actually find myself somewhat in harmony with many of your points (I also appreciate your compilations for Signature BTW). Have you read Hoskisson

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan writes:

The key feature of modalism is that it does not distinguish between the

[juliann]

I want Kevin to show how it relates rather than giving us sources without analysis.

But if you believe it relates, why don't you tell me?

But you are getting analysis along with very sound sources. What I find troubling is that you swat away very sophisticated and documented responses with a wave of your hand yet you offer very little support for your own theories beyond your own work. That creates somewhat of a circular argument don't you think?

[Dan Vogel]

Kevin,

Thanks for the clarifications.

Benjamin McGuire has already explained why Barker's view is relevant to a discussion of Abinadi's view of God. From a historicist perspective, Barker provides a context with we can compare, explore, and test the Book of Mormon. She's reconstructing pre-exilic Temple Theology, i.e., Jerusalem 600 B.C. The Book of Mormon purports to be rooted in the same time and place. How do the two pictures, based on radically different methods and sources, compare? Astonishingly well, it turns out. I've published four articles on the topic, including a new one in FRB 16-2, and continue to find it a fruitful and exciting enterpris.

So far, I remain skeptical about the relevance of Barker

[Dan Vogel]

Juliann,

But you are getting analysis along with very sound sources. What I find troubling is that you swat away very sophisticated and documented responses with a wave of your hand yet you offer very little support for your own theories beyond your own work. That creates somewhat of a circular argument don't you think?

I don

[Beowulf]

Dan, I get the impression that you have not yet read Barker. Dismissing her as irrelevant to the issue in Mosiah 15 may be just a bit premature.

She shows, in The Great Angel, Israel's Second God, that there was indeed more than one god in ancient Israel, according nicely with modern LDS belief.

But more to your point, she shows that Names in the OT were constantly mixed and matched. Yahweh is confused with Elyon. Father and Son are mixed together. In my mind, this is what is happening in Mosiah 15, but it is not Modalism, because that particular idea did not yet exist. Abinadi is taking an OT look at the Father and Son gods. He follows Barker's OT worldview very consistently.

Read Barker, and then come back and we can discuss this again.

Yours,

Respectfully,

Beowulf

P.S. I have been away from the list for several weeks. (Christmas with the family, can you believe it.) But I did pick up your book and start reading. Only finished the Intro so far.

[hooberus]

I don't think that Barker's theories are consistent with the belief of the inspiration, and preservation of the Hebrew scriptures. I think that one must deny one (or both) of these in order to accept her theories.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan writes:

This is an interesting fact in understanding the development of the Israelite concept of God, I admit, but how that correlates to Mosiah 15, as you and Ben explain, seems problematic to me. You have Yahweh, the Son, becoming the

[Confidential Informant]

Wow, Ben, that was.....great! I'm not sure what was more impressive, the fact that you know all that or the fact I even understood most it.

Thanks for a great discussion.

C.I.

[Kevin Christensen]

Besides material that Ben has ably replied to, Dan V asked with respect to the Dead Sea Scrolls reading of Deut. 32:8-9.

[juliann]

And thus he is the father because he has seed. Not because he is El Elyon or because he is God the Father. His fatherhood is defined by those who are his sons and duaghters. A notion which is consistent with my reading of Ether 3.

I'm going on memory, but I'm quite sure there is a discussion of son/father in a (Valentinian?) Nag Hammadi text. Considering Barker's theory on the survival of first temple traditions this may become even more appropriate to the discussion. I'll have to look for it.

At any rate, I'm bumping this up so that Dan has an opportunity to respond.

[Confidential Informant]

Please don't stop fellows. This discussion is fascinating.

C.I,

[Confidential Informant]

So, is this thread dead now?

C.I.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Yeah, I think so. Which is too bad. It was getting interesting.

Ben