Pyreaux

The advice that their land "should" be kept secret from the Nations of the Old World, says absolutely nothing excluding Nationless vagabonds like everyone there. Exactly what "Nation" did the Clovis represent? Even with the Clovis there, the land is still undiscovered by any of the "Nations". The "nations" often meant major warring empires like Babylon or Egypt, rather than groups of indigenous people already living in there. 'Plain reading", as always, is a thing not considerate of what different people thought it meant in history. Ignoring how Ancient Near Eastern adoptions work, like in the Bible, "seed" often includes servants, concubines and their children, adoptees and migrants "grafted in." Over 1,000 years, Lehi’s biological markers would be diluted by a much larger "native" population, making them genetically invisible today while remaining "covenant seed" in God's eyes. Modern Americans have different notions of what "the land" or "all" the earth is. The Ancient Near East is full of hyperbole. "All" doesn't always mean "100%". In the Old Testament, phrases like "all the earth came to Egypt to buy corn" (Genesis 41:57) clearly don't mean people from Australia and the Americas were in Joseph’s grain line. It means "the known world" or "everyone in the region." Have you never read any local flood theories that explain a relative nature in these texts? The prophets confirm that Noah was real, the account all the earth was flooded is "true", just as there is "one" God, and Jesus is God's "only" son is also "true", but it's also hyperbole. What's interesting in the Nephite system is it's an exchange system tied specifically to barley, and barley was once an anachronism in the Americas too. Then we found it. The ancient Mesoamerican markets, goods were almost exclusively measured by volume, by filling containers. The use of metal as a weighted currency is not currently supported by the Mesoamerican archaeological record for this period, which is why the Book of Mormon description is viewed as an anachronism. But since there is evidence that ancient Egyptians traded with South Americans (for tobacco, coca plant). If trade and diffusion happened, wouldn't there likely be an Egyptian-influenced merchant using Egyptian systems? The Nephite system (based on values of 1, 2, 4, 7) is striking similar to ancient Egyptian weight systems. For example, the Eye of Horus fractions in Egypt used a similar binary-based division for measuring grain. If an advanced mercantile system existed in a specific city-state, it might not spread to the rural areas that didn't have access to metals. It is surprisingly easy for a group like the Nephites to leave a thin signature. If archaeologists haven't dug in the exact market plaza of that specific city, the evidence remains buried. Many pyramids are built on top of more advanced pyramids and civilizations. A marketplace from 80 BC could be buried under 60 feet of rubble and five subsequent layers of construction. If a city-state fell or went bankrupt, their gold and silver weights wouldn't be thrown away, they would be melted down to make jewelry and idols. That's assuming the Spanish didn't find it already and took it to Spain.

"There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. When this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory! O death, where is thy sting?! O grave, where is thy victory?!"(1 Corinthians 15:54) Was he secular? Sydney Carton’s final words as he sacrifices himself for another. A poignant and beautiful passage about redemption and finding peace in sacrifice. Capturing the idea of passing into a better place, leaving behind a legacy of love and honor. "I see that child who lay upon her bosom and who bore my name, a man winning his way up in that path of life which once was mine. I see him winning it so well, that my name is made illustrious there by the light of his. . . . It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest I go to than I have ever known." (A Tale of Two Cities by Charles D!ckens) Or maybe All that is Dad still exists in an immaterial and aethereal form called... "information", we are an aspect of an “existentially unified” cosmos that will persist after our deaths. And his “spirit” or consciousness consists of information, eternal and indestructible. One of the deepest principles of quantum theory is called “unitarity,” which forbids the disappearance of information. This means with enough intelligence and the right technology, it could be retrieved, recreated or resurrected or even maintain its immaterial existence in a computer simulation.

They were great angels, human spirits who are called gods because God adoption them as the Sons of God. The preeminent Son of God, king of the council of gods, is Jesus Christ, featured in Genesis asking this council for its approval in the Creation, I'm not sure how much they helped beyond their approval. The angels and the Sons of Gods, have no origin in the Genesis Creation account, they already exist, like Job's Creation account, where the "Morning Stars sang together" and the "Sons of God shouted for joy" at the laying of the Earth’s foundations (Job 38:7). In Genesis the "Speaker" (the Word/Logos/Christ) isn't just talking to himself or magicking things into existence by speech; he is issuing a formal directive to a subordinate group, "Let there be..." issuing a decree to the Council. The Book of Abraham, this is made explicit: "And the Gods said: Let there be light... and they [the Gods] organized the light." The verification "...and it was so" the decree issued by the Speaker was carried out exactly as ordered by those assisting in the work. "...and He saw that it was Good" is an inspection of the work done by the Council. The Genesis "Us" is the Divine Council in mainstream scholarship ("Let us make man in our image"). It has long been debated. Strict monotheists want it to be a plural majesty, but it ignores the Ancient Near Eastern context. Genesis 1:26: The blueprinting of humanity modeled after the human looking gods. Genesis 3:22: The concern "The man has now become like one of us" the gods, knowing good and evil. Genesis 11:7: The intervention at Babel "Let us go down and there confound their language". This isn't "God" alone, the elohim are a category of being in a divine family of El. Daniel 4:17, the text explicitly mentions there are "gods", who are part of a judicial process where the Council deliberates and issue verdicts that affect Earth. "This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones." Job 1:16, says, "Fire of the Gods fell from heaven and burned up the sheep and the servants." As the decree of the gods in heaven becomes a physical force on Earth. The Lord doesn't act in a vacuum; He puts the questions to the council, He hears their arguments. Job 15:7–8, Eliphaz is rebuking Job for arrogance. His questions are deeply loaded with the "Council of Gods" theology, "Are you the first man ever born? Were you brought forth before the hills? Have you listened in the council of God?" The Adam Rishon is referencing a specific tradition found in the Midrash that Adam was a divine, quasi-angelic being who existed before the physical creation of the Earth. He is essentially asking, "Were you one of the Noble and Great spirits who stood with God during the creation?" The primordial sage Adam had a seat in the heavenly court and possessed wisdom because he was there when the blueprints were drawn. "The Council" (Sod Eloah) is a technical term, a private, confidential gathering of high-ranking officials. It refers to an "inner circle". Since Job wasn't the "First Man" or a member of that pre-mortal assembly, he has no right to question the "Fire of the Gods" that fell upon him Midrash, Genesis Rabbah 8:7, the Jews address the question: "With whom did God take counsel?" The Midrash explicitly states that God consulted with the "souls of the righteous" (Nishmatan shel Tzaddikim) during the Creation. This suggests that in these "righteous ones" existed in a spiritual state before the physical world was organized. The Midrash implies that these spirits weren't just observers but were active participants in the "consultation" phase of humanity’s creation.

Who is dictating the core, the medieval mystics? The oldest "Joseph" figure wasn't a warrior or a giant killer. When we strip away the medieval additions, the DSS iterations of The Apocryphon of Joseph, the core details are the "Joseph" figure is a victim of intense persecution. He is described as being "abandoned into the hands of strangers" and into the hands of the "heathen." He is surrounded by enemies, "fools" and those who "mock" him. He cries out for vindication against those who have usurped his place. The conflict in the oldest accounts isn't a war with a border, but over sacred space. The Joseph figure laments that "fools" and "strangers" have defiled Zion and the Temple. "The fools have built for themselves a high place upon a high mountain to provoke Israel to jealousy; they have spoken words of rebellion against the tent of Zion. They have spoken against the Temple of the LORD, and they have done according to all their desire..." And it’s about apostasy, loss of the true priesthood, being usurped by those who claim it but have no right to it. There is no literal war, he's not yet the medieval Jewish King Authur. He represents the "Northern Tribes", Ephraim and Manasseh, who are currently "lost" or scattered. His mission is to pray for the time when "all the tribes" will be gathered back to the true worship of God. After that is the Talmudic snapshot in Sukkah 52a, the idea of his death is solidified, but it is still remarkably sparse on details. The text simply says he is killed and that there is a "great mourning." It's assumed he dies in a conflict, but the Talmud doesn't say things like name who kills him or where it happens. It is a theological necessity that he dies so that Messiah ben David can arrive. It's the Medieval Apocalypses (visionary and symbolic) where your "literal" details actually come from. In the 7th–10th centuries. Smith’s Joseph prophecy in Genesis 50 feels much more like the oldest layer. A Joseph, son of Joseph, a choice Seer who gathers and brings light, not so much the medieval layer who kills the anti-Christ. Who other than a would-be prophet gets to say how the past prophecy is actually fulfilled? When lamenting how many times a false prophet tries to claim how a past prophecy gets fulfilled, it's an inescapable notion for a believer in prophecy, that a prophet gets to say how the past prophecy is actually fulfilled. If Isaiah said "a young woman shall conceive," and he was talking about his own son in 700 BC, then a prophet coming along 700 years later and says "Actually, it’s a virgin birth recently in Bethlehem" is either re-conning history or... a prophet. The only difference between "mythmaking" and "prophecy" is whether you believe the guy who did the re-reading had the authority to do it. It's not easy. Unlike when Bar Kokhba, the 2nd-century Messiah candidate, died in battle against Rome, his followers didn't say, "well, maybe one day he'll be back." They said, "We were wrong," and he became known as Bar Koziba "Son of a Lie". Whereas the entire LDS project has always depended on the idea that God defines "Ephriam", "Israel", "Zion" and "The Temple" broader than the Bible authors did in several instances. Just as the Christians did with the ideas of "Exalt", "Save", and "Liberate". I think John says Jesus was exalted (lifted up)... On the cross... Hmmm, well, that is one way to put it. Maybe, I can't prophetically identify unidentified people. I've heard many theories based on the few clues that the Two Witnesses would be Elijah and Moses returned, I guess they are messiahs of sorts who do tend to return like on the Mount of Transfiguration (and Kirtland), but neither was a Josephite (Benjamin and Levi). The other theory is they are two latter-day prophets, and since I as biased, I'd say they are likely LDS prophets, one could be from Ephriam, I'm sure most have been made so in Patriarchal Blessings, but Joseph Smith still would likely be the foretold Josephite neo-Moses prophet, being influenced by the JST.

Certainly, as Jesus didn't fit all late expectations of the Messiah ben David, I'm not saying Joseph Smith is a 1:1 fulfillment of the medieval Jewish iteration of the Messiah ben Joseph. Joseph Smith fits a "type" of those later traditions. Joseph didn't die in a literal battle or in the war of Gog and Magog, he was Lieutenant General of the Nauvoo Legion and died a Martyr’s death that many might call a "battle" or rebuild the Jerusalem Temple, but he re-introduced the Temple to the modern world, midst a new Jerusalem of Zion. An ongoing work that is hoped to eventually reach old Jerusalem. The candidates for these prophecies may have multiple stages. Thus, Jesus will return later to be the expected King. Such arguments were used by 1st-century Jews to reject Jesus. Early Jewish leaders may have suppressed the suffering Josephite Messiah tradition to distance themselves from either Samaritan, Kingdom of Ephriam, claims or early Christian "Suffering Servant" Messiah arguments. As the Masoretic texts alterations show motivation to obscure Messianic prooftexts. The "Shared soul of Cain" or Metatron versions of Messiah ben Joseph are highly late-medieval Kabbalistic, but Joseph Smith matches the earliest layers found in the Dead Sea Scrolls which describe a Joseph figure involved in gathering the tribes. A "Forerunner" to the final victory. A "Second Joseph" narrative would naturally be colored by the hopes of the people, if they were under Roman or Islamic rule, they would militarize him. If they were mystics, they would Kabbalize him. You're right that Joseph Smith isn't everything expected but the core roles of the Messiah ben Joseph, gathering the tribes, being a suffering forerunner, and opening the door for the Davidic King, are exactly what he claimed to do. In the vision of the "Four Craftsmen" from Zechariah as interpreted in the Talmud, Sukkah 52b, the Righteous Priest in Jewish tradition, specifically Rashi, is almost universally identified as Melchizedek himself. The Dead Sea Scrolls like the Manual of Discipline 1QS explicitly state that the community should live by their strict rules until a specific time, "...until the coming of the Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel." This "Prophet" aligns with the Messiah ben Joseph. Messiah of Aaron is the Priestly Messiah, a Melchizedek figure, Kohen Tzedek, Righteous Priest Messiah of Israel is thought to be the Kingly Messiah, a Davidic/Jesus figure. Though a Messiah of Aaron, John the Baptist was the son of Zacharias, a priest of the course of Abia and Elisabeth of the daughters of Aaron. He was, by birthright, the legitimate claimant to the Aaronic High Priesthood in a time when the Jerusalem temple leadership was seen as corrupt or illegitimate. Maybe the "Righteous Priest" is a title for someone of the "Sons of Zadok" the righteous priestly line, separate from the Hellenized establishment of Jerusalem.

The Seer named Joseph narrative was in the Book of Mormon first, a "choice seer" named Joseph, whose father would also be named Joseph (2 Nephi 3; JST Genesis 50). Messiah ben Joseph (Yosef) provides a massive historical weight to this. An anciently known prophecy, found specifically in the Talmud, Midrash, the Book of Zohar, of an anciently known figure from the tribe of Ephraim who prepares the way, gathers Israel, and often is killed in battle in the process before the final victory to come of the Messiah ben David. If Joseph Smith were just "writing himself in," he picked a remarkably specific and ancient Jewish archetype, a descendant of Joseph of Egypt, one that he likely had zero access to know about in the rural 1830s. A tradition that scholars like Margaret Barker suggest dates back to the First Temple period, long before the Talmud was compiled. Dead Sea Scroll fragments like 4Q372 and 4Q175 to show the roots of this tradition. These scrolls describe a "suffering Joseph figure" and a "Prophet like Moses" who would appear in the last days. "That Prophet" mentioned in John 1:21 priests asked John the Baptist if he is one of three prophesied figures, Elijah, the Christ, or "that prophet?", scholars like David Mitchell have argued that this represents the Messiah ben Joseph tradition. It could have been in Genesis or other texts before the Deuteronomic scribes removed it, like how the Masoretic Jews removed the "Messiah" from Isaiah 52:14, and the Deuteronomic scribes wrote-ins Cyrus the Great into Isaiah 150 years before he was born in Isaiah 44:28 because these scribes thought in their time that this Messianic prophecy was fulfilled by Cyrus, though it wasn't.

In what way? Historical or linguistic or theological? There would be a difference. If it was never in the Greek manuscripts, does this fit the nature of revelation? A Midrash isn't meant to replace history, it’s meant to reveal a truth hidden in the text. What if the JST's account of the disciples "complaining" helps a modern reader understand the dangers of apostasy or the loneliness of Christ's sacrifice? Then a proponent would argue it is "true" in its mission, even if it isn't in any ancient manuscript. The "Correctness" of the JST, or apocalyptic or Wisdom literature or Parables is judged by the doctrines it produces not the literalness of the dialogue or details written. If we don't have any idea what the original words spoken in the Garden were, and if the Greek Gospels were written anonymously decades later by people who weren't there, how do we know the Biblical account isn't the one that is 'wrong'? An incomplete spiritual record requires a living Prophet to fill in the gaps through the same Spirit that inspired the original writers. It's best to find out if Joseph Smith is a Prophet first, then his revelations are correct one way or another. Unless it's entirely wrong. Joseph Smith himself never published it. He was constantly revising it. Maybe that's God's way of saying we were never really meant to have it.

Except the Kinderhook Plates were six tiny, bell-shaped scraps of brass. The Book of Mormon plates were described as a substantial volume approximately 40–60 lbs. And we know exactly who made the Kinderhook plates, Wilbur Fugate and others. For the Gold Plates, we have no theory of a "Fugate." Did Joseph make them, how and where? If Joseph didn't make them, who did? If a local blacksmith made a 50-pound "golden" prop using copper or a high-zinc brass were industrial commodities. You couldn't just buy "sheets" at a local hardware store and make it at home. It'd cost nearly a month’s wages for common laborers like the Smiths, who were famously struggling with debt and losing their farm, spending a month’s income on a "prop" without anyone noticing the expenditure is a significant evidentiary hole. Tin-ware is cheaper but too light and silver-colored. To make it look like gold, it requires a gold lacquer. If the Eight Witnesses both "hefted" the plates and "turned" the leaves, they know it's too light to be gold, they would be seeing the wear and tear of the coating. Hand-engraving a single page of "Reformed Egyptian" characters into metal takes hours of meticulous work, even if you exclude the "sealed portion", it could take months of full-time labor. You cannot secretly hammer and engrave 50 pounds of metal in a small home shared with a dozen people without someone hearing or seeing. In a third-hand account in a private journal, Joseph apparently looked at the Kinderhook Plates, made a preliminary comment based on his existing worldview, and then... nothing. What he may have done was compare the Kinderhook characters to his "Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language" trying to be an amateur linguist in that instance. But for the hoaxers to trick Joseph tells us he must have believed that other metal plates existed. If Joseph was a conniving fraud, he would know ancient plates don't exist because he made his own, so he wouldn't be "tricked" by a hoax, he would recognize a fellow traveler. If Joseph was sincerely deluded, he might be tricked, but that doesn't explain how he produced a 500-page coherent text if that is the claim. The fact that the Kinderhook plates were fake does not suggest the Goldes Plates are faked, at least not easily. A skeptic would consider them being taken away convenient, but a jurist must evaluate the secondary evidence, like the Witnesses. The Kinderhook hoaxers admit to the fraud, while the Eight Witnesses never admitted to being part of a hoax. The Kinderhook analogy is a bit clunky. Note: I do encourage the thought experiment that if for argument's sake there is no God, there must be one natural explanation, even if it is just as unbelievable as saying God did it.

Mark 14:36–38. The JST adds specific verbs and internal motivations that aren't in the Greek manuscripts we have. "And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping...", becomes "And he cometh and findeth them asleep, and they said unto him..." they aren't just caught sleeping, they have an excuse. Jesus says, "the spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak" becomes the Disciples say, "The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak." "...and they began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy, and to complain in their hearts, wondering if this be the Messiah." Complaining in one's heart against a leader is called disloyalty. In the Old Testament, the Israelites complained in their hearts against Moses. God treated this as a rebellion. By "complaining," the disciples are essentially saying Jesus is spoiling their expectations of an anointed King. It's not unreasonable to say with Peter's previous rebuke, then the garden, then Peter’s violent outburst with the sword cutting off the ear of Malchus, where Peter is again rebuked for interfering with the plan. Whatever reason you give him, this is technically disloyalty. If there were doubt that there was doubt in Peter, there is Peter’s external denial in the courtyard. You can't say "I know him not" unless you have already "wondered if he be the Messiah" in your heart, as the JST suggests. I am aware, the thought is the other Gospels lean on Mark, and Mark was in Greek, and also Matthew has Greek word play, the Peter/Petra pun in Matthew 16, not suggestive of being a translation into Greek, if there was an Aramaic original, it'd be a complete rewrite into Greek. It was just a segway to suggesting we don't actually have original manuscripts or autographs. Certainly, the quotes of the disciples weren't originally spoken in Greek. Greek is not just a different set of words, it’s a different way of thinking. Greek is precise and philosophical, Aramaic is earthy. There will be idioms lost in translation, being written anonymously, the 150–200 year gap, and I'm not sure telnetd is ready to understand or acknowledge how a "telephone game" effect can happen with oral traditions.

I've been ignoring this thread, as I have nothing particular against naturalistic theories, but it's where all the activity is now. But what you shared looks like a composite naturalistic theory, it tries to be every naturalistic theory at once, so the plates are somehow a pious fraud, visionary trance, and physical prop at the same time. Was Smith a smithy? The naturalistic explanation usually posits a "prop" made of tin or lead. But in 1820s tin-smithing wasn't a kitchen table hobby. It requires a forge, shears, and specific hammers. If Joseph or any co-conspirator made them, where is the physical evidence, claim or theory of the workshop? The Eight Witnesses claimed to see "curious workmanship" and "engravings." If it was just scratched-up tin, why did eight men, several of whom were craftsmen and farmers familiar with metal, not recognize the metal wasn't gold or notice inferior workmanship as over hours of hefting and turning the plates? If it was a high-quality forgery with actual faux-Egyptian characters etched into metal, who had the skills? If it was a co-conspirator like Oliver Cowdery or your local blacksmith, why did the secret never leak, even during the bitterest periods of Oliver's apostasy? The other blur is with both Three and Eight Witnesses together was a "visionary" event. The Three Witnesses claimed to see an Angel and hear a Voice. Naturalisticly called a "collective hallucination." The Eight Witnesses testimony is strictly sensory. There was no angel, no voice, and no "spiritual eyes." They handled the leaves in broad daylight. If John Whitmer or Hiram Page who later became extremely hostile to Joseph Smith never blow the whistle and say they had been tricked by a cheap prop, their anger at Joseph would have given them every motive to expose the trickery. They didn't. They died asserting the reality of the plates. Brandon Sanderson uses a computer, an editor, a back-story wiki, and years of planning. Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon in roughly 60–90 days with no substantive internal contradictions, no rewrites, and no looking back at previous pages. You have suggested a 'physical prop' existed. If that prop was 'painted tin' (Vogel's theory), please explain how eight grown men handled a tin prop for an afternoon without doubt? If they were co-conspirators, why make a prop, and how did they spend 50 years lying about it for a man they eventually came to despise? What was their motive for maintaining a lie that brought them poverty and persecution long after they had broken with the 'liar' who started it?

When the JST says they were "wondering if this be the Messiah," it isn't saying they forgot who Jesus was, it’s saying they were experiencing cognitive dissonance. If for some of these ex-Zealots, a "Messiah" by definition is a Conquering King, and Jesus is currently a Sufferer, then their logic dictates, "Either our definition of Messiah is wrong, or this man isn't the Messiah." The JST suggests they questioned the latter in that moment of darkness. In the KJV, the disciples simply fall asleep because they are tired. In the JST, their sleep is portrayed as disloyalty. If they are confused-but-loyal, Jesus’ rebuke "Could ye not watch with me one hour?" seems harsh reaction to an innocent nap. But if they were doubting his very identity, his rebuke isn't just asking them to stay awake; he’s asking them to stay faithful as he is being "crushed." The JST then flips to the disciples saying "the spirit is ready, the flesh is weak" is the disciples admitting their lack of faith. So be clear, because you don't seem to be picking it up, I'm suggesting to you, Joseph Smith’s JST may not be intended to be a restoration of the original text, it may not even be "true" in the sense that is what they actually said, did, or recorded, rather what the JST "restored" wasn't there before. He's reading the Bible, gets a question. gets a revealed answer, he adds it to D&C or something, but then also tries to force fit the reply into the text, with some creative license, like prophetic midrash might do. If something was or wasn't in the manuscripts is a bit unfalsifiable, we can't really know for sure without an original manuscript. It seems more straight forward to simply determine whether Joseph Smith was or wasn't a Prophet by personal revelations first and then concede to the JST is a revelation of some sort, as opposed to going backwards, starting with trying to validate the JST to prove Joseph was a Prophet. What is true, is their dreams of a Messiah died in the Garden, the disciples' faith could have died with it, only to be "reborn" at the Resurrection. Peter’s three-fold denial in the courtyard is the historical anchor for the JST’s narrative. Peter literally swore oaths that he did not know the man. But if JST’s Gethsemane happened, Peter’s denial becomes a logical outcome rather than a sudden, out-of-character lapse.

Your idea that their conversion was static, the idea that once the disciples confessed Jesus as the Messiah, like Peter at Caesarea Philippi, the matter was settled is not so. Both the Bible and JST suggests that knowing someone is the Messiah in the good times is very different from believing it in your darkest hour. "Thou art the Christ" (Matthew 16:16) he says but consider the immediate context of that same chapter. Just moments after calling Jesus the Christ, Peter then tries to stop Jesus from going to the cross. Jesus responds, "Get thee behind me, Satan" (Matthew 16:23). So, even Peter who confessed the Messiah, then rejects the idea of a Messiah that is supposed to die. Matthew was supposedly written in Aramaic and it is now lost. That creates a "gap" where the JST could theoretically be restoring things that the later Greek translations missed. Papias of Hierapolis around 125 AD wrote, "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language [Aramaic/Hebrew], and each interpreted them as best he could." Irenaeus, Origen, and Jerome echoed this, claiming Matthew wrote for a Jewish audience in their native tongue before a Greek version was circulated. These Greek manuscripts are a record of what survived, but not necessarily a pure or complete record. I could stand on that alone, as many LDS do, but I'm not doing that. I'm just saying what Joseph Smith is "restoring" is possibly entirely new information. Joseph Smith restores the doubt not to make the disciples look bad, but to make the Savior look more Kingly. He stayed faithful even when his own Handpicked Presidency was "complaining" and "wondering" if they had backed the wrong guy.

It is interesting that you’ve spent 50 years in the faith without realizing that celebrating the life of Christ isn't adopting the traditions of the world. You are conflating the creeds with the holidays we actually love to acknowledge but usually very reserved in how we observe it, if at all; Easter, Christmas, Trunk or Treat. Sometimes even a shout out to Hanukkah and Passover. The Church doesn't mandate Lenten fasting or the distribution of ashes, but it certainly encourages members to remember the Resurrection, in their own way; bunny, no bunny, whatever. There’s a massive difference between not following the religious observance and forbidding the recognition of the week. Typical for a not-a-TBM to take the actions of a single uninformed teacher to define the attitude of the whole church. Ignorance of a ritual like Ash Wednesday doesn't negate the Church may still acknowledge the day. If you find it 'annoying' that a church is focusing on the final week of Jesus’s life, I think that says more about your desire for conflict than it does about any real concern about the purity of our theology.

For a Jew in the Second Temple period, the Messiah was the Davidic King who would crush the Romans. Some of the Twelve had Zealot backgrounds, like "Simon the Zealot", Judas Iscario, a corruption of Sicarii (the "dagger-men" or assassins). And Peter, in his behavior in the Garden drawing a sword and cutting off an ear is the classic signature of a Zealot who was ready for a violent uprising. We are simply supposing Jesus had already dispelled their political hopes. However, the Gospels show that the disciples were notoriously slow to believe Him. Even after the Resurrection, their first question was: "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6). The Triumvirate of Peter, James, and John held a higher position than the others, they were the First Presidency of the ancient Church. Jesus expected more from those with more light. The eleven might all be amazed and complaining, but Jesus specifically pulls aside the Presidency to join Him, to watch. Their failure to stay awake is a greater betrayal of their specific office than the general confusion of the other eight. The JST highlights that even the Chief Apostles were susceptible to the weakness of the flesh. it might be Joseph Smith was highlighting a theme of Apostasy, that even those closest to Jesus had complained and doubted when things got hard.

Generally, it's obvious when studying it when one verse is changed but the surrounding verses and scaffolding of the chapter is left in its original form, shows an unpolished quality, and is a central part of the debate over what the JST is. LDS scholars have noted that Joseph Smith never finished the JST in the sense of a final, polished publication. He simply continued to tinker with it and make revisions until his death in 1844. One belief is the JST functioned as a pedagogical tool. Joseph was "translating" as a way to receive revelations like for the D&C. Once the specific doctrinal point was made, he moved on, even if the surrounding text wasn't fully smoothed out. Another notion is it's a midrash, so it doesn't have to be perfectly consistent with the source text; it just has to highlight a "new" truth. If the disciples were clueless as the Bible suggests, why would they suddenly feel heavy amazement? An LDS perspective might suggest the amazement of the disciples wasn't about the Atonement they didn't understand, but about the usurping of their other expectations. Their would-be King was talking about his blood being shed and being betrayed by one of their own. Their amazement was the shock at the mere suggestion their political hopes for him was about to end. It implies they weren't just tired; they were becoming disillusioned.

Don't ask me how spirits suffer, or why they wear cloths.

I see no particular reason why you should agree with it without being LDS. Is the incomplete JST supposed to be a literal restoration of ancient parchment? Or are we looking at a prophetic midrash, an expanded commentary on the verses intended to teach a specific theological truth? Midrash isn’t necessarily concerned with what actually happened in a historical vacuum, it is concerned with what does this text mean for us today? Midrash often fills in the narrative gaps, resolves contradictions, and brings moral clarity to the text. Large portions of the Bible are actually inspired rewrites of earlier materials. The most famous example is the author of Chronicles took the earlier books of the Kings and "rewrote" them. It removes many of the embarrassing parts of King David’s life, adding a focus on the Temple and the Covenant. Many scholars believe the Book of Job is a midrashic expansion of an older, shorter story. The complex dialogue between Job and his friends were likely added later to explore the problem of evil and suffering. Matthew and Luke appear to rewrite Mark as their primary source and expanding on Mark's shorter narrative to include Birth Narratives and such. Matthew specifically rewrites a "midrashic" Gospel to prove to Jews that Jesus fulfills the Old Testament. The New Testament writers frequently cited oral Midrashic traditions as if they were established facts. Jude contains perhaps the most striking example of Midrash portrayed as valid: "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation..." (Jude 1:9) This event is completely absent from the Hebrew Bible. Joseph Smith may have been "adjusting" the text to highlight a different set of priorities than traditionally attributed to them, as it was traditionally thought that Jesus is terrified and cowering and thus proves he is 100% human. While the JST portrays Jesus as a steady, resolute, and all-knowing figure. He isn't the one wondering if he is the Messiah; the disciples are. If Joseph Smith's intent was to provide a commentary, he seems to be saying Jesus wasn't shocked, scared, or bewildered; he was suffering a calculated, intense, and literal payment for sin. I guess you may not be a Baptist. Many Evangelicals prefer other terms, like "anguish" or "dread" rather than fear. D&C 19 shifts from psychological dread, or fear of what's coming, to physical/spiritual agony, the actual process of the Atonement. Jesus describes Gethsemane in D&C 19, caused him to "tremble because of pain" and "bleed at every pore." To "Suffer even as I" described in D&C 19 is what awaits anyone who does not repent. The Atonement is "infinite," meaning it covers all people in all states of existence, provided they accept it. If they don't, they must suffer even as He did.

and filed an extension, it was granted, and just made their deadline yesterday.

Correct. Laura Gaddy filed their Petition for a Writ of Certiorari but the Court has not issued an order granting cert (choosing to hear it). Now that the petition is filed, the Church has about 30 days to file a Brief in Opposition, explaining why the Supreme Court should ignore the case. This is however hot news to Ex-Mormons and the Mormon Stories Podcast, if the Ex-Mormons want to throw their money away (again?) just to start a conversation about this, I'm game.

Gaddy v. Corporation of the President RICO Case reached a major milestone, February 28, 2026, with a petition for the U.S. Supreme Court to take it up. A Deception Argument The core of the plaintiffs' argument is that the Church didn't just "teach religion"; they concealed physical evidence. They argue the Church taught that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon using "Urim and Thummim" while hiding the "Seer Stone" (a rock in the hat) in a vault for 100 years. Yet there are primary sources available with those accounts, with other differing accounts that are overlapping and messy. The RICO angle is that by using the mail and internet (wire fraud) to spread these "false" historical narratives was done to collect their tithing, the plaintiffs claim the Church operates as a corrupt enterprise. It's dumb. As the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in August 2025, courts cannot be Inquisitors. If a judge starts deciding which parts of a miracle are true and which are fraud, the First Amendment effectively dies. The law treats religion as subjective; you can't sue a church for the fraud over the First Vision, and you can't sue a psychic for a bad reading. The Tithing Fraud Theory The second half of the case is about City Creek Mall and Beneficial Life. The Plaintiffs say President Gordon B. Hinckley lied when he said "not one penny" of tithing went to the mall. In the related Huntsman case (January 2025), the 9th Circuit ruled that the Church didn't lie. They used earnings from invested tithing (interest), not the principal tithing. To a layperson, this may sound like a distinction without a difference, but in accounting, it’s a massive legal difference. The court found that because the Church had commercial earnings to cover the mall, no fraud occurred. To win a RICO or fraud case, you have to prove Proximate Cause, that the lie directly caused you to spend money you wouldn't have otherwise spent. The plaintiffs argue they paid tithing because they didn't know a "rock in the hat" account existed. Judges have struggled with many of these odd Ex-LDS claims. If you are a devout member for 40 years, did you really pay 10% of your income only because of the specific translation method? Or did you pay because you enjoyed the community, and believed in the faith and the overall theology? The plaintiffs claim existential crisis, depression, and financial loss. But they've received 40 years of free religious services, weddings, funerals, community in exchange, making it impossible to calculate "damages". The case is now at the Supreme Court’s doorstep. Attorney Kay Burningham is asking SCOTUS to decide if "empirically verifiable historical facts" (like the existence of a seer stone) can be separated from "religious belief." If they allow this case to move forward, every religion in America (Scientology, Catholicism, Islam) could be sued by former members for "historical inaccuracies" in their promotional materials. The term "Urim and Thummim" was a catch-all phrase Initially, Urim and Thummim was what Joseph referred to the "Interpreters" found with the plates. Under the influence of associates like W.W. Phelps, the term "Urim and Thummim" was adopted to describe any physical instrument used in revelation. So, to many early members, a seer stone was an Urim and Thummim. When Joseph or Oliver or the later Church says "Urim and Thummim," they could have been referring to the brown stone, or the white stone. The "Hybrid" Translation Model Most historians (Don Bradley and increasingly the Church itself) now point to a timeline where both were used, which complicates the idea of a "lie". Witnesses like Emma Smith and Martin Harris suggest the "Interpreters" were used primarily for the first 116 pages. After the 116 pages were lost, many accounts or David Whitmer and Emma Smith state that the Interpreters were taken back by the angel and that Joseph finished the rest of the translation using his brown seer stone. Other accounts say there was breastplate at one early point, and others say at another later point there was no stone or hat. This is where the RICO case falls apart on merit. If you put the witnesses in a room, they don't all agree or align with a Seer Stone only theory. If the witnesses themselves (who were in the room) couldn't agree on which stone was used and when, it’s legally impossible to prove the Church "knew" one was a lie and the other was the truth. Because the translation is claimed to be a miracle, it falls under the "Religious Autonomy Doctrine." Courts cannot rule on how a miracle happened. If the Church says in its very scripture, the doctrine, nothing but "he translated by the power of God," they are protected; whether he used a hat or a rock or not is considered a matter of faith. The church taught what we knew based on the accounts we prioritized, like Oliver Cowdery. As more records like David Whitmer were studied, our understanding evolved. In a fraud case, evolving understanding is not the same as "intent to defraud." The RICO case assumes there’s a 'secret truth' the Church hid, but the historical record remains messy. Joseph Smith used multiple stones, called them by different names, and his scribes all remembered the process just a little differently, and all can be "true". https://becketfund.org/case/gaddy-v-corporation-of-the-president-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints/

The Epistle of Barnabas and the Gospel of Barnabas have almost nothing in common besides the name. The Epistle of Barnabas was in roughly 70–132 AD. It was highly respected by the early Church (found in the Codex Sinaiticus). It is pro-Jesus as Divine. The Gospel of Barnabas dates to the 14th–16th century AD. It is Islamic in nature. But is the agony of Gethsemane a fear of suffering and death on a cross, or is the agony of Gethsemane itself a part of the suffering? Many of the other Christians were crucified too if not worse. Christ was speared in the side by one Roman soldier before they had time to break his legs. For this act the Roman soldier Longinus was declared a Saint by the Roman Catholic Church, as this was an act of mercy, preventing Christ from suffering even more. Isaiah depicts suffering no whip or cross can deliver. No Roman torture can make a man feel all sorrow, sicknesses and sin of all people, or transfer the guilt for abominations of his people on himself, or produce an agony so great that he bled from every pour.

More notes The Two Goats If the Atonement of Jesus Christ has anything to do with the Atonement rites of the Day of Atonement, the original rite had at least two parts, represented by two goats. One goat makes an atonement with is blood, the second goat is cast out of the city, ideally lead by the hand of a foreigner, in hopes it will die, eaten by a lion, away from Jerusalem and not wonder back with their sins. Sometimes it would come back, and so the Jews later resolved to push it backwards off a cliff. “On Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) a goat was thrown off a high cliff in the desert, to atone for the sins of the Jews. A red ribbon was hung up in the Temple on that day. When the goat was thrown off the cliff, the ribbon turned white.” (B. Yoma 67a) This description links the Temple with the exile of the scapegoat. Viewing it as a kind of remote Temple offering as signified by the transformation of the ribbon from red to white. The First Century Christian document, the Epistle of Barnabas, is attributed to the Biblical Barnabas the Levite, one of the Seven Assistants to the Apostles, and Paul’s Missionary Companion (Acts 4:36; 13:2). It was lost and then rediscovered in 1859 in the Sinai Codex. Now whether or not it was written by the Biblical Barnabas or another Barnabas, it is definitely a document from the apostolic era, with valuable insight. Barnabas has many quotes from Old Testament era texts we don’t have. Concerning the treatment of the scapegoat, “Spit on it, all of you, thrust your goads into it, wreath its head with scarlet wool and lead it be driven into the desert,” “when they see him coming on the Day, they are going to be struck with terror at the manifest parallel between him and the goat,” “they shall see him on that Day, clad to the ankles in his red woolen robe and will say, ‘is this not he whom we once crucified and mocked and pierced and spat upon?” (Epistle of Barnabas 7). Now, Isaiah had a similar vision of the Lord, on the Day (of Vengeance), come in a red robe and when he asked the Lord why he is red, He replies his robes are bloodstained red from when he had troddened the winefat “alone, and of the people, there were none with me” (Isaiah 63:2). Jesus Christ in the Second Coming has a bloodstained red venture (Revelations 19:13). Isaiah’s quote seems to describe Christ had stained his robes while alone in Gethsemane (Luke 22:44). Christ was not alone at Golgotha (Luke 23:39). Christ did customarily wear his High Priest’s expensive, seamless and brilliantly white robe before he went to Gethsemane. Christ was not wearing his robe when he was crucified, the Roman Soldiers took it from him (John 19:23-24; Psalm 22:18). Barnabas makes a unique claim that is contrary to Leviticus, he says that the first goat, the sin offering goat, in the Day of Atonement ritual was originally eaten. The people ate the carcass, and the Priests ate the fat and bloody sacrificial portions, unwashed, in vinegar (sour wine). Barnabas quotes from an unknown quote from Jesus Christ who is quoting an unknown Book of the Prophets (an Old Testament scripture), “What does it say in the prophet? ‘Let all the priests but nobody else eat of its inward parts, unwashed and with vinegar.’ Why was this? Because, ‘When I am about to give my body for sins of this new people of mine, you will give me gall and vinegar to drink’” (Epistle of Barnabas 7). The New Testament authors were careful to note that Christ was given “vinegar to drink mingled with gall” (Matthew 27:34, 48; Psalm 69:23), though they don’t explain the significance of this. Leviticus, seems to contradict Barnabas’s quote, saying in the Atonement, the High Priest did remove the fat and enthralls, kidneys and liver, but claims they were burned on the alter with the priests while the carcass was burned with the people outside, and does not say it was eaten (Leviticus 4:8-10). If it was eaten unwashed, Leviticus also says the consumption of blood is forbidden (Leviticus 3:17), as Jews of the first century say in the Mishnah (m. Yoma 6:7). Though the Mishnah doesn’t represent the views of all First Century Jews, the also Mishnah mentions there were Jews they refer to as “Babylonians” (presumed to be a derogatory term for other Jews, perhaps the Alexandrian Jews), who performed the Jewish Day of Atonement rites and did eat the sin offering, and if it was the Sabbath, they ate it raw, because they couldn’t cook (m. Menahoth 11:7). What is interesting about this is, if Barnabas is correct, and the sin offering was eaten unwashed, raw, and in vinegar/sour wine, then there was definitely blood consumption/drinking in the Temple by priests on the Day of Atonement. What Barnabas is implying is that by having Christ drink vinegar with gall mingled in it on the cross, which some think it as cruel mockery, or another act of mercy (an attempt at pain reliever or for hastening death). There were some First Century Christians, like Barnabus that saw this event as being foreshadowed by the Day of Atonement ritual. It gives Christ’s Sacramental cup more context. As the Sacramental bread and wine is believed to be the foretold new Temple bread and libations reestablished (Malachi 1:7, 11) Christ insisted that the contents of his cup of fruit of the vine was his blood, even though Leviticus forbids blood drinking (Leviticus 3:17). Blood drinking while not Kosher, may have been Kosher for priests during Atonement Day practice. Just how other Temple practices and objects were forbidden outside the Temple, like using the formula for temple incense, or the temple anointing oil, or possessing a seven branched lamp stand in a private house was forbidden for general use, but not for the Temple. It's possible that Leviticus maybe, as some think, an edited late document. Or it's merely intended to be the rules of Israelites, but not royal Melchizedek priests, and later self-imposed by Jews. Some scholars think this version of the Atonement practice eating of the sacrificial goat's inward portions in wine is valid and would explain the origin of the Christian traditions to remove the inner portions of the sacramental loaf (the inward parts of the Body of Christ) and mingle it with the sacramental wine (the Blood of Christ) of the Eucharist (M. Barker, The Great High Priest, pg70). One might question the authenticity of Barnabas’s unbiblical sources, merely because it is an unbiblical source. Though one of Barnabas' unbiblical sources ended up being discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Book of Enoch. Barnabas quotes, “It will come to pass in this last days that the Lord will deliver up destruction, the sheep of the pasture, with their sheepfold and their watchtower [1 Enoch 89:56]” (Epistle of Barnabas 16). As a side note, the watch tower is the temple (Isaiah 5; Assumption of Moses 2:4; Shepherd of Hermas, Parables 3:2:4; 9:3:1; 9:7:1). The Book of Enoch is the most quoted book in the New Testament and has a lot to add to the meaning of Christ's Atonement. .... Proxies and Scapegoats There is no Biblical explanation of the theology behind the rituals of atonement. We do know under normal conditions, covenants made with blood oaths must mean the offended party must demand the blood of the oath breaker, the sinner. Fortunately for the many that have sinned against a merciful party, such as God, there arose a need to innovate a ritual system as the Atonement, so that just one person, the High Priest, could stand as proxy for the covenant people, the sinners, in the atonement ritual. The consequences of not atoning for sins when the Covenant broke meant that the earth went from created order to original chaos and the people suffered. A priest must atone with animal blood as the proxy for the sinners, or else the blood of the sinners themselves, human blood, was apparently accepted for the Covenant to be satisfied (Numbers 25:7-13). The priest hears the confessions of the people, he bears them as he takes the place of the people to offer up his own blood in their stead. Fortunately for the Priest, the ritual also accepted a goat as a proxy for the blood the priest is supposed to pay himself. This appears to be done by making a goat another proxy for himself, a priest, and then using its blood. We see details of an ordinance that seems to signify the transference of the priesthood from the Priest to the goat by the laying on of hands upon to the goat's head, and the goat is even given a priest's crown with the name of Lord upon it. The meaning behind such a crown is that the goat, like the Priest, is to stand as a proxy for the Lord God of Israel Himself when the goat atones for the sins of all the people of Israel with His own blood. Sounds like a type and shadow of the Christ. Again, blood was believed to be “life” of a creature (Leviticus 17:14), so this is an important distinction, a sin offering was not completed upon the death of the goat, but by a priest's offering of that goat's “blood” in a holy place (Leviticus 17:11). If a Priest had only sacrificed the goat and drained its blood, but then failed to deliver that blood to the temple, and by his hand sprinkle it there, nothing was achieved by the animal’s death. The smearing blood at the temple is what was important, or else the temple which represents the microcosm of all Creation, was not renewed and purified. Once the blood is sprinkled about the temple, and thus all Creation, it is then purified, and the High Priest absorbs and bears the sins of the people that has tainted all creation (Leviticus 10:17). Once the sins were all collected, he’d bore them and then confessed the sins of the people over the head of a second goat (as the previous one was dead), and thus he transfers the people's sin he absorbed on the head of that second goat, The goat referred to in King James English as the “scapegoat”. But the two goats were supposed to be identical (m. Yoma 6:1) that is supposedly because they were ritually the same goat. Two proxies for what was to be accomplished by one person who was to stand as a proxy for all. The scapegoat is lead from the Temple of Jerusalem to the Mount of Olives, then on a marked path out of the city, preferably by the hands of a gentile (Leviticus 16:21; m. Yoma 6:8).

Good catch, if the JST disciples are the ones "sore amazed," then Jesus appears more stoic, which moves even farther away from what the Baptists hold to. The JST changes paint a picture of a more composed Jesus, by shifting the complaining and doubting to the disciples, it emphasizes that Jesus was the only one who truly understood the mission, while the disciples were faltering in their faith, falling asleep. For Joseph Smith, these revealed changes might have been "justified", particularly if we assume he's a prophet. Mark 14:33 doesn’t provide an explicit, labeled reason for Jesus' amazement. Like this idea that he was fearing death. Many martyrs went to their deaths singing hymns, like Polycarp and Peter. Was Jesus, the model of martyrs, "amazed" and "heavy" just because of a cross? If so, it would almost make him look less brave than his followers that were also crucified.

I don't disagree. What I disagree with is the agony of Gethsemane was somehow very specifically the definitive expression of a fear of the cross. They don't know that. They just see no other purpose for the account. If He were showing cowardice, it's a bit below the confidence of other sacrificed heroes, like Issac or Selia. Seila said "who is there who would be sad in death, seeing the people free?" (Ps-Philo 40:2; Josephus, Ant 5:7:10 [265]). "Do you not remember what happened in the days of our fathers when the fathers placed the son as a holocaust, and he did not refuse him but gladly gave consent to him, and the one being offered was ready and the one who was offering was rejoicing?" (Ps-Philo 40:2). "I am not sad because I am to die nor does it pain me to give back my soul. If I did not offer myself willingly... my death would not be acceptable" (Ps-Philo 40:3).

You'll find for many Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox traditions, Gethsemane is considered one of the primary "prooftexts" for the Hypostatic Union. This is the doctrine that Jesus had both a divine will and a human will. Baptist theology often emphasizes the Substitutionary Atonement, that Jesus stood in our place. For this to work legally and spiritually, he had to be truly human. Baptists argue that if Jesus didn't feel fear, his "courage" on the cross wouldn't be courage, it would just be divine inevitability. Charles Spurgeon, perhaps the most famous Baptist preacher in history, spoke extensively on this in his sermon "The Agony in Gethsemane." He argued that Gethsemane proves Christ’s humanity because He possessed a "rational soul" that naturally shrunk from pain and death. https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/the-agony-in-gethsemane/#flipbook