Mormon 9:22–24 vs Mark 16: 15-18

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Thanks and I will pass this along.  From a brief review of this link it appear that the author is taking the Biblical Scholars are wrong approach that I mentioned in my OP.  As I stated earlier this is not the most satisfactory answer to dilemma since it puts Mormonism against Biblical scholarship.  

I think their view is more complicated than that. Again just "trust the experts" is a poor argument if you can engage with why the experts view things the way they do and how much diversity of opinion there is on the subject.

However the other obvious answer is that the text is referencing Mark that was known in the 19th century both to drive home the parallel to what Mormon said and because the underlying translation is very loose and uses KJV text or contemporary texts (like paraphrases of Shakespeare) to translate underlying ideas. This is both due to the nature of a loose translation but also because the underlying text might be heavily compressed and thereby ambiguous depending upon what the writing system was. (Which we just don't know) So whether one buys the scholarship on Mark it's not really any more of a big deal than say paraphrases of NT passages in pre-Christian times in the Book of Mormon due to the nature of the translation. (Say for example 1 Nephi 5:8 and Acts 12:11) In my personal view it's unlikely Mormon was quoting Mark but rather Markian language was being used to translate a conceptually similar idea of Mormon's.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

My understanding is most scholars accept the text was altered with the additional material.

Yes, but it seems that it's not as clear cut among scholars as it used to be (if i'm understanding it correctly).  See my post to Button.

[Button Gwinnett]

51 minutes ago, Gray said:

A review of Lunn's book:

 

http://www.fbs.org.au/reviews/lunn63.html

Excerpt:

 

In my personal research on the Long Ending in Mark, In addition of the fact that the long ending is not found in the earliest codex's of mark, the use of words and combination of words not found in any other part of mark also strongly suggest that it is a late addition.  So the fact that it wasn't in the earliest codex's is NOT the only evidence to support it being a late addition to Mark and not original to this Gospel.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Quote

Each translation theory has its own problems and creates is own set of spin off problems.  if we go with a tight translation as many profess,  or with a loose translation which also has problems and spin off problems. (if I had time I could insert multiple problems for both of these) there are problems unique to that method of translation.  I don't even dare share these with my friend it would be too much. for him to handle. 

Neither of these are descriptions of a method of translation (and subsequently they aren't translation theories at all). The ideas encapsulated in the notion of "tight" and "loose" translation with respect to the Book of Mormon don't actually represent much that has to do with translation (and you would see how I point this out in my presentation that I link to above).

Better questions would be along the often misused notions of "word-for-word" or "literal" translation. These deal with questions of methods of translation. Even better is to ask questions like why the text is filled with archaic language in a translation - does it represent a translation strategy aimed at the reception of the translation to its contemporary audience? Is it a strategy aimed at duplicating a sense of archaic language in the original source (and so it is an aesthetic component to the translation method)? These are the sorts of discussions we should be having when we discuss translation methods and translation theories. We never really get there - we usually stop at these descriptions of loose and tight.

In a tight translation scenario, no translation actually occurs. Joseph as a reader of the text isn't translating at all. He is simply a part of the transmission process (not much different than say an early manuscript of a novel). How this can be called a theory of translation is boggling to me. In the loose translation, we have to start asking ourselves about what Joseph contributes to the text in terms of rhetorical strategies, language, and how Joseph moves something inaccessible in the source to something accessible in the translation. And in most of our discussions in the notion of a loose translation, we see very little of this. We can't focus on the incredibly important question of how the Book of Mormon is different from the Gold Plates, when we are insisting that there is no difference at all.

[Gray]

32 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Yes I get this and while I believe that we must let the Book of Mormon speak for itself, I hate that we have to depend on Lund's assertions which run against the prevailing Biblical scholarship.  Again its us against the world or so it seems.  We keep offering these ever shrinking safe harbors for belief to be maintained but its getting harder and harder to maintain belief in when so much of the prevailing scholarship is running against us.  I fear for my friend and fear that he and his family are on the brink of losing all faith and hope in the church and its claims.  I know for a fact, from our past conversation that he is clinging to belief by the thinnest of hope and remains only out of family considerations.  This is a good man and past fellow member of our stakes high council. I have been able to provide satisfactory answers to some of his questions but on others there are answers but none of them seem to be satisfying.   

Honestly I think the answer is to let go of the importance of historicity. Properly understood, scripture has never been about that. The Christian fundamentalists have rewritten our notion of what scripture is actually supposed to be about.

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but it seems that it's not as clear cut among scholars as it used to be (if i'm understanding it correctly).  See my post to Button.

You can always shop around to find a scholar who disagrees with the mainstream on just about any issue. I'm not aware that there is any controversy among most scholars that the ending was tacked on later. There is some disagreement about whether or not Mark ends where it ends in the earliest manuscripts, or if there was some other, unknown ending lost to us now. (my understanding) But it's very difficult to make the case that then ending we're familiar with for Mark is original to Mark.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

You can always shop around to find a scholar who disagrees with the mainstream on just about any issue. I'm not aware that there is any controversy among most scholars that the ending was tacked on later. There is some disagreement about whether or not Mark ends where it ends in the earliest manuscripts, or if there was some other, unknown ending lost to us now. (my understanding) But it's very difficult to make the case that then ending we're familiar with for Mark is original to Mark.

As I said to Button, I'm not aware of anyone who argues that the ending of mark is original to mark.  I quoted from BYU on Button's post, which i'm not sure you saw.

[hope_for_things]

31 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

My understanding is that there is a consensus in the Biblical Scholarship arena.  The Long Mark ending is an addition after the fact and took place in the 2nd century AD.  That it is found in the BoM is what is creating this problem.  How did it make its way into the BoM?

Agreed, this is pretty well established.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Longer_ending_of_Mark

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

You can always shop around to find a scholar who disagrees with the mainstream on just about any issue. I'm not aware that there is any controversy among most scholars that the ending was tacked on later. There is some disagreement about whether or not Mark ends where it ends in the earliest manuscripts, or if there was some other, unknown ending lost to us now. (my understanding) But it's very difficult to make the case that then ending we're familiar with for Mark is original to Mark.

Its funny how often this topic comes up on these threads.  I think part of the problem is that as Mormon's we are so far behind when it comes to biblical scholarship.  This makes for a large portion of Mormon culture ignorant to the evidence on one hand, and dismissive and skeptical of the entire enterprise of scholarship on the other.  Thankfully we're making some slow progress, but its hard to change the culture.  

[hope_for_things]

51 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

While I haven't gone as far as you have to maintain belief, I do feel comfortable with my earlier solution to this problem, that Joseph expanded off of the Bible and evangelized Moroni's and Mormon's sermon by adding these biblical passages.

Its not really a matter of "maintaining belief" for me.  I don't believe in BoM historicity because the evidence for it isn't compelling, and the evidence against is much stronger.  Also, it doesn't fit into my paradigm for life anymore, I don't believe in a supernatural God.  Not believing in the supernatural, I would have to believe that Joseph found some ancient records and actually learned how to decipher the characters into English using natural means, and that is pretty hard to fathom and doesn't square up with witness accounts or any evidence that Joseph could have accomplished this feat. 

I still find value in the BoM (not all of it), it definitely helped me in my life, and has shaped the person I am today at some level.  Also, I think there are many lessons we can learn from the text, independent from the historicity claims.  

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I told my friend I would get back with him with an explanation to satisfactorily resolve his doubts that this post has created.

Well, lots of luck with aaaaaall that!

[Gray]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Its funny how often this topic comes up on these threads.  I think part of the problem is that as Mormon's we are so far behind when it comes to biblical scholarship.  This makes for a large portion of Mormon culture ignorant to the evidence on one hand, and dismissive and skeptical of the entire enterprise of scholarship on the other.  Thankfully we're making some slow progress, but its hard to change the culture.  

Yes, I encounter a lot of suspicion about the topic - it's very similar in conservative Christian circles.

[Button Gwinnett]

Update: I had lunch today with my friend and passed along the links provided.  He was aware of and claimed that he had read Lindsey's apologetics already.  This is the essence of what he said. 

#1 he believes that the evidence supports the Biblical Scholars, so any explanation that requires him to believe that the long ending was original to Mark, at least for him, is a non starter. 

#2. Because this is his starting place, I offered him my personal point of view that Joseph was probably just being led by the spirit to add these words, his replied by saying And make it look like Jesus said them to Mormon? I had to admit that that doesn't make any sense either. He added that what I was saying is that Joseph just wrote the book himself, how is that any different from him just making it up.

#3 He admitted that his testimony is in shatters, he's hanging on for family considerations and societal expectations only. (I didn't know it was this bad)

#4 he said that if this was the only problem that he might be able to over look it but he said his list is long and full of  unresolved questions.

#5 he claimed that much of LDS apologetic solutions require him to suspend all logic and ignore counter evidence to maintain belief.  I asked him to give me an example and he mentioned the seer stones.  I had to agree with him on this one, as this is one of my issues as well, so I understand that it takes a huge leap of faith and a suspension of logic to believe that rocks dug from a well could do what is now being claimed.  I'm not going to de rail my own thread but I'd love to know how others have managed that leap of faith some day.

He is deep in the closet, is active , holds a TR and a calling that no longer requires mental conflicts. My fear is that he has slipped into that place where his faith will be irretrievable.  I suggested that he show up here since this board has several individuals much more versed in these things then me.  He said he'd think about it.

One last thing.  He did say that he appreciated our friendship and that at least with me he could be real. He also told me that he doesn't see himself leaving the church although the thought has crossed his mind but that he see that as a drastic move, he's much more likely to just become a back bencher.  Any way that's my report.  His boat is taking on water but I don't think it'll sink at least I hope not.

[CV75]

34 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Update: I had lunch today with my friend and passed along the links provided.  He was aware of and claimed that he had read Lindsey's apologetics already.  This is the essence of what he said. 

#1 he believes that the evidence supports the Biblical Scholars, so any explanation that requires him to believe that the long ending was original to Mark, at least for him, is a non starter. 

#2. Because this is his starting place, I offered him my personal point of view that Joseph was probably just being led by the spirit to add these words, his replied by saying And make it look like Jesus said them to Mormon? I had to admit that that doesn't make any sense either. He added that what I was saying is that Joseph just wrote the book himself, how is that any different from him just making it up.

#3 He admitted that his testimony is in shatters, he's hanging on for family considerations and societal expectations only. (I didn't know it was this bad)

#4 he said that if this was the only problem that he might be able to over look it but he said his list is long and full of  unresolved questions.

#5 he claimed that much of LDS apologetic solutions require him to suspend all logic and ignore counter evidence to maintain belief.  I asked him to give me an example and he mentioned the seer stones.  I had to agree with him on this one, as this is one of my issues as well, so I understand that it takes a huge leap of faith and a suspension of logic to believe that rocks dug from a well could do what is now being claimed.  I'm not going to de rail my own thread but I'd love to know how others have managed that leap of faith some day.

He is deep in the closet, is active , holds a TR and a calling that no longer requires mental conflicts. My fear is that he has slipped into that place where his faith will be irretrievable.  I suggested that he show up here since this board has several individuals much more versed in these things then me.  He said he'd think about it.

One last thing.  He did say that he appreciated our friendship and that at least with me he could be real. He also told me that he doesn't see himself leaving the church although the thought has crossed his mind but that he see that as a drastic move, he's much more likely to just become a back bencher.  Any way that's my report.  His boat is taking on water but I don't think it'll sink at least I hope not.

My Zen for the day: I have found that he who lives by biblical scholarship alone dies by biblical scholarship. Also, we pick our last straws. And one last one, a Japanese proverb: Nana korobi ya oki (seven falls, eight rises), having to do with resilience. Hopefully he has it and you can encourage him in it.

---

Regarding the stones, I don't think they themselves were doing anything but serving as a tool for Joseph. Just as people scribe or doodle or stare at the screen while they think, or to help them think, ruminating over the stones served the same purpose. That their use had magical overtones is only a 19th century version of the awe/dependence we may hold for the technology of our day. As with thoughts, spiritual revelation is facilitated by any means the user finds effective, then as now. I think an interesting poll for the board would be to see if and what any such tools people use nowadays when seeking revelation (bread and water, clothing, tokens, yoga, pareto charts/fishbone diagrams/scatter plots/other CQI tools, etc.).

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

A Facebook friend  of mine has reached out to me seeking answers to a question that he read on a FB post made by Bill Reel. (out of respect I won't cross copy his post) While I have my own ideas on how this might have happened which I'll post below*, Bill does make a compelling argument asking how Mark's words found there way into Morori's mouth and were then written in the Book of Mormon some 400 years after Mark wrote them in his book.  But the plot thickens even more.  Our earliest and most reliable codex's of Mark don't have these verses in them, suggesting that they were late additions added to Mark's Gospel by scribes 2 centuries after the fact and were never even words written by the author of this Gospel we call Mark.

Here are the 2 verses that  (highlighted) are word for word the same and yet Biblical scholars have determined that these words were late additions to the Bible and could not have possibly been written by the author we call Mark.

 

So I'm curious how others see this dilemma or is there some easy explanation that I am not familiar with.  I told my friend I would get back with him with an explanation to satisfactorily resolve his doubts that this post has created.  I should add that this friend has been struggling for several months so this is just another piece of straw upon the back of the camel.

So this is my explanation, but I'm interested in other ideas.  I believe in cutting strait the what I believe is the most logical answer.

*I believe that Joseph copied/quoted this verse directly from his family Bible. During the translation process perhaps in a moment of feeling the spirit he began to evangelize upon the words of Moroni and expand upon what he was translating.  To me this is the most likely answer.  I don't believe that Moroni transported himself across the world to some Catholic monastery where he peeked over the shoulder of some monk/scribe in the act of transcribing the Bible and adding those words as some have suggested.   And I can't see God putting the words of a monk into Moroni's mind to put down on Gold Plates and then have him attribute as the words from Jesus's own mouth.

The other logical answer is that the Biblical scholars are wrong and that Mark did in fact write the longer ending to his Gospel and that it being in Morioni's version supports this conclusion and that some how evil men removed it.  This answer is not at all satisfactory to me it requires too many moving parts and flies in the face of modern Biblical scholarship. It also requires an explanation in how it found its way into Mormon 9:22-24 some 400 years after Mark had written it.  It just requires too much supernatural gymnastics for my tastes.

So what say you?

I don't know that I really understand the problem. I thought LDS believed that by the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. The Book of Mormon also has other small pieces from the NT in it and the Lord gives His sermon on the mount again as well.

Wikipedia notes that there is some patristic evidence for the longer ending of Mark:

The earliest clear evidence for Mark 16:9-20 as part of the Gospel of Mark is in Chapter XLV First Apology of Justin Martyr (c. 160). In a passage in which Justin treats Psalm 110 as a Messianic prophecy, he states that Ps. 110:2 was fulfilled when Jesus' disciples, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere. His wording is remarkably similar to the wording of Mk. 16:20 and is consistent with Justin's use of a Synoptics-Harmony in which Mark 16:20 was blended with Lk. 24:53.

Justin's student Tatian (c. 172), incorporated almost all of Mark 16:9-20 into his Diatessaron, a blended narrative consisting of material from all four canonical Gospels.

Irenaeus (c. 184), in Against Heresies 3:10.6, explicitly cited Mark 16:19, stating that he was quoting from near the end of Mark's account. This patristic evidence is over a century older than the earliest manuscript of Mark 16.

Writers in the 200's such as Hippolytus of Rome and the anonymous author of De Rebaptismate also used the "Longer Ending."

In 305, the pagan writer Hierocles used Mark 16:18 in a jibe against Christians, probably recycling material written by Porphyry in 270.

There is some ancient attribution of the longer ending to Ariston, an associate of Peter. Some have also noted that verse 8 doesn't seem to grammatically end. Perhaps the longer ending was on a leaf which was lost to the Alexandrian church which was responsible for making most of the shorter copies of Mark while another copy proceeded out of Antioch.

I believe most of the Greek manuscripts actually have the longer ending. Correct me if I'm wrong. I believe the Peshitta does as well. 

Lastly, is there something wrong with the longer ending? Even if it is  not original, it seems each verse is attested to by some other part of the NT. 

Mormon would have written in the 4rth century AD, well after the longer version was in print. Assuming the spirit told the BoM writers to write other parts also found in the NT, can the spirit also tell Mormon to write that already written in the first Bibles? It is not like this is supposed to be some English translation of some early English NT. Other parts of the BoM exactly follow the KJV as well. If you have a problem with that why not all the others? The fact that the Lord seemed to retranslate so much of the BoM into the KJV format should inspire confidence in the KJV, but somehow it seems to have the opposite effect these days.

[Jeanne]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think Joseph wanted to change the religious times he was faced with. I don't think he believed in what was being taught, he tried and even joined the faith of his mother, but I think he wasn't comfortable there and prayed and felt inspired to create a new one. I believe he took many sources and put them into the BoM. He started a religion just like others surrounding him in the area. They also had visions, and wrote books. It was the time of religious birth in America, since so many were experiencing freedom in believing what they want. That meant you started your own based on those beliefs. His father and grandfather were Universalists and I see some universalism in the church. His family were also Freemasons. And I see that integrated in the church, and even the temple. I see even things from Judaism mixed into ours. And how people will say that once the millenium occurs the Jewish will change over to Mormonism because we're so alike. I see articles that mention that we are a lot like the Muslim religion also. I think Joseph created our relgion from all of these resources and on American ideals. 

Bingo....I do believe that Joseph believed what he was doing....he yearned for more than what was there...and created a very visionary church...his bible study and all those things he devoured in reading added to his charisma and creative mind.  He IS astounding!  He made what he wanted in the realm of a certain devotion and what he wanted to see and be in the mind of God. 

[RevTestament]

27 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Bingo....I do believe that Joseph believed what he was doing....he yearned for more than what was there...and created a very visionary church...his bible study and all those things he devoured in reading added to his charisma and creative mind.  He IS astounding!  He made what he wanted in the realm of a certain devotion and what he wanted to see and be in the mind of God. 

Hmm. Unbingo. There are many things in the BoM Joseph Smith simply did not even know nor could know. It is unfortunate the Church has misinterpreted them.

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Hmm. Unbingo. There are many things in the BoM Joseph Smith simply did not even know nor could know. It is unfortunate the Church has misinterpreted them.

I am smiling here because you don't think JS is near as smart as I do!!

[RevTestament]

14 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I am smiling here because you don't think JS is near as smart as I do!!

There is no way for an uninspired man to know many of the archaeological points in the BoM - things like barley were only recently archaeologically confirmed. There is also no way for him to know the future. That is God's realm. The Church mistakenly puts BoM prophecy in Joseph Smith's day, and thereby took the teeth out of the BoM, and takes away one of its great evidences of its veracity in favor of a bowl of confusion.

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Neither of these are descriptions of a method of translation (and subsequently they aren't translation theories at all). The ideas encapsulated in the notion of "tight" and "loose" translation with respect to the Book of Mormon don't actually represent much that has to do with translation (and you would see how I point this out in my presentation that I link to above).

I think a better way of putting this is that the word "translation" is ambiguous especially within Mormon semantic use where it can refer to the relationship between two texts or the method of producing said texts. The problem is that when we discuss this we're always dealing with that ambiguity and the fact most readers haven't even thought about the distinction.

This is significant since of course for many ancient texts we don't have the original language text but have a translation. We can't say much about the process beyond perhaps noting some structures suggesting the original language (and indirectly method). Some of this happens with the Book of Mormon (such as purported Hebraisms) but it's trickier since I think the method of translation (either sense) isn't consistent through the text.

To my eye the topic normally talked about (Joseph's use of the seer stone or Urim & Thummim and the level of control over the process by Joseph) is the least interesting and perhaps in some ways least knowable. (Even with accounts of spelling out letter by letter words, we don't know if that applied to the whole process/text) That sense of method is just largely unknowable although people might speculate.

The relationship between the underlying text and produced text (which is what I think most mean by tight or loose) is of course still speculative but perhaps we can say more about it given quotes and paraphrases from the KJV, Shakespeare, various 19th century theological phrases, 15th century grammar, and so forth. I think all that loose/tight means (in the sense that say Brant Gardner means) is what the unit of translation is (word or short phrase or longer or even conceptual rather than phrase) and how much flexibility in rendering this unit the text uses. (i.e. how much paraphrase is allowed and how much expansion or revision of the text). Those arguing for tight translation in content typically favor something like the KJV relation to say the main Hebrew or Greek texts. That seems pretty indefensible IMO. Once you allow a more loose relationship between texts such that paraphrases, expansions, redactions are allowed then that means a lot of elements traditionally appealed to by apologists (like Hebrewisms) become problematic. (IMO)

[clarkgoble]

18 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

There is no way for an uninspired man to know many of the archaeological points in the BoM - things like barley were only recently archaeologically confirmed.

To be fair though an uninspired text could postulate barley. The question is much more what a somewhat ignorant person in early 19th century New England would believe about native American culture 2000 years earlier. So the issue isn't successes if those successes happen to be what naive people expected.

The type of successes that matter the most are those not apt to be assumed by someone in 19th century America and simultaneously less open within the text to careful readings. i.e. they're demanded by a straightforward reading. I make that distinction because many passages have to be read in a fashion a 19th century person wouldn't read them in order to work in most apologetic work. i.e. how revisionist readings of say swords or horses work. There's nothing wrong with that of course but they do mean many "hits" are really finding a way of reading the text to fit data rather than a passage that demands a reading unlikely to be known in the 19th century but demanded by archaeology.

2 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

#1 he believes that the evidence supports the Biblical Scholars, so any explanation that requires him to believe that the long ending was original to Mark, at least for him, is a non starter. 

#2. Because this is his starting place, I offered him my personal point of view that Joseph was probably just being led by the spirit to add these words, his replied by saying And make it look like Jesus said them to Mormon? I had to admit that that doesn't make any sense either. He added that what I was saying is that Joseph just wrote the book himself, how is that any different from him just making it up.

[...]

#5 he claimed that much of LDS apologetic solutions require him to suspend all logic and ignore counter evidence to maintain belief.  I asked him to give me an example and he mentioned the seer stones.  I had to agree with him on this one, as this is one of my issues as well, so I understand that it takes a huge leap of faith and a suspension of logic to believe that rocks dug from a well could do what is now being claimed.  I'm not going to de rail my own thread but I'd love to know how others have managed that leap of faith some day.

I think you should point out more options.

1. One can accept the consensus of scholars but note that Mormon wrote around 400 AD. If he got some variant of the NT any text up to that point is fine. So even if the text is missing from Mark the question is when. (Others have addressed that point) People who strain at the longer Mark being in the Book of Mormon but accept angels have a contradiction to deal with since an angel could have brought a NT text to Mormon.

2. The whole "make it look like Jesus said them to Mormon" seems problematic. The question is what Mormon wrote down which is likely a memory and reworking of what was originally said. Much like the First Vision accounts written years after the events are a reconstruction rather than transcript. Ask them to recall a conversation from years earlier word for word. Any text is thus not a transcript and shouldn't be taken as such unless presented as such.

3. While some apologetics are definitely better than others and some are frankly horrible, it's important to not paint with too broad a brush. My experience is that many find a particularly implausible or poorly written apologetic and dismiss all apologetics on that basis. (Believers, those having faith crises, and those who've become unbelievers unfortunately do this at times) That's just not fair. First off not everyone shares the same premises, so apologetics by its nature has to deal with people with very different starting points. One might not share the premises that someone else holds. Thus what works for one can't work for everyone. What might be convincing to your friend might be utterly implausible to me.

This isn't to say there might not be items most apologetics share that someone might find completely implausible. (For some people the very idea of angels or miracles without extremely strong public evidence is a non-starter)

Edited October 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

But it's very difficult to make the case that then ending we're familiar with for Mark is original to Mark.

Just to be clear, that's not really the issue. The issue is what form Mark had when Mormon received it around 400 AD.

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Honestly I think the answer is to let go of the importance of historicity. Properly understood, scripture has never been about that. The Christian fundamentalists have rewritten our notion of what scripture is actually supposed to be about.

I think that's a complete false dichotomy. Either scripture is what early 20th century liberal theologians said or it's what fundamentalists say. There are other choices.

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think that's a complete false dichotomy. Either scripture is what early 20th century liberal theologians said or it's what fundamentalists say. There are other choices.

Sure. A lot of early church fathers would say it's symbolic. Or I think a lot of first century Christians wouldn't care about or understand the distinction

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Update: I had lunch today with my friend and passed along the links provided.  He was aware of and claimed that he had read Lindsey's apologetics already.  This is the essence of what he said. 

#1 he believes that the evidence supports the Biblical Scholars, so any explanation that requires him to believe that the long ending was original to Mark, at least for him, is a non starter. 

#2. Because this is his starting place, I offered him my personal point of view that Joseph was probably just being led by the spirit to add these words, his replied by saying And make it look like Jesus said them to Mormon? I had to admit that that doesn't make any sense either. He added that what I was saying is that Joseph just wrote the book himself, how is that any different from him just making it up.

#3 He admitted that his testimony is in shatters, he's hanging on for family considerations and societal expectations only. (I didn't know it was this bad)

#4 he said that if this was the only problem that he might be able to over look it but he said his list is long and full of  unresolved questions.

#5 he claimed that much of LDS apologetic solutions require him to suspend all logic and ignore counter evidence to maintain belief.  I asked him to give me an example and he mentioned the seer stones.  I had to agree with him on this one, as this is one of my issues as well, so I understand that it takes a huge leap of faith and a suspension of logic to believe that rocks dug from a well could do what is now being claimed.  I'm not going to de rail my own thread but I'd love to know how others have managed that leap of faith some day.

He is deep in the closet, is active , holds a TR and a calling that no longer requires mental conflicts. My fear is that he has slipped into that place where his faith will be irretrievable.  I suggested that he show up here since this board has several individuals much more versed in these things then me.  He said he'd think about it.

One last thing.  He did say that he appreciated our friendship and that at least with me he could be real. He also told me that he doesn't see himself leaving the church although the thought has crossed his mind but that he see that as a drastic move, he's much more likely to just become a back bencher.  Any way that's my report.  His boat is taking on water but I don't think it'll sink at least I hope not.

Ahh... it sounds like he is at a place where he is past help from the apologetics approach, this is good, he is at a place of growth.  But this is bad when it comes to Mormon support for people at this position in their life, there is very little good support within Mormonism for a metaphorical approach to religion.  My recommendations: 

https://www.amazon.com/Finding-God-Waves-Through-Science/dp/1101906065/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1507758561&sr=1-1&keywords=mike+mchargue

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_2_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=the+sin+of+certainty&sprefix=the+sin+of+cer%2Caps%2C1643&crid=URF240ZDGC16

https://www.amazon.com/Convictions-Learned-What-Matters-Most/dp/0062269984/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1507758546&sr=1-1&keywords=convictions+marcus+borg

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_13?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=falling+upward+by+richard+rohr&sprefix=falling+upwar%2Cstripbooks%2C237&crid=TBV9VAGNJ15

There are many outside Mormonism who approach religion from a metaphorical perspective.  Mike McHargue has a podcast that I love titled  Ask Science Mike, if he likes it I recommend his book first and the others listed above are helpful as well.

If you care about your friend not losing religion entirely, I recommend putting him on the path above, it is one that I believe has intellectual integrity and a spiritual component as well.  Its not easy to navigate within Mormonism, I'm a less active participant, but one that's not consumed with anger towards the church (I have my bad days though), and overall I can find value in the positive elements of the our tradition still.  Good luck!