Matthew J. Tandy

There's also the matter of what "eternal" even means for beings who might be outside of the time-flow, who look at it like we do the lay of the land before us. If all is before us, and we have no urgency in time, only places in it, how does the mind adapt to that? Can one get bored from continuing on through millenia when there are no millenia as we know it?

I think you are missing the point of what I am saying, and why. Such is life. I'm not concerned.

I appreciate the comments and take them in the spirit they were given.

Perhaps she was or is now a wife of God. Sealed to him as part of her faithfulness. There is nothing currently that would make this doctrinal though.

As JAHS mentioned, our heavenly mother (whether one or multiple) would have already been exalted before Adam and Eve.

Rodheadlee, I don't see Mormon's words being comparable. Nephi was a first generation expat. His language would have been purer. His record was unaltered to our knowledge. I believe the text of Nephi regarding Lehi is clear that he is expounding on a scripture. I assume he was inspired to do so, but that does not mean 100% of what he says is inspired. It's similar to a talk from a general authority who references the last battle of the Nephites being in New York. The comment is almost always part of a large, inspired talk about a completely different topic. The mention of Cumorah is based off of not new revelation, but the eprson's understanding. Do we toss out the whole talk? Of course not. We do evaluate what matters, what does not, and how each is applied.

We see differently I suppose (see what I did there... ;-) ). The good news is that both of our views are viable in the framework of the gospel and the topic itself does not impact our salvation. 

Glenn's reference was imminently helpful also.

4 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I'm sorry but I have to reject your premise that any of these verses were just supposed. Nephi, Mormon and God edited these verses before they made it to the final cut of what we received in the BoM. 1Nephi 6 tells us in verse 5:  "5 Wherefore, the things which are pleasing unto the world I do not write, but the things which are pleasing unto God and unto those who are not of the world." Mormon says it's the will of God that these things are in our scripture in verse 6 he says "6 But behold, I shall take these plates, which contain these prophesyings and revelations, and put them with the remainder of my record, for they are choice unto me; and I know they will be choice unto my brethren.  7 And I do this for a wise purpose; for thus it whispereth me, according to the workings of the Spirit of the Lord which is in me. And now, I do not know all things; but the Lord knoweth all things which are to come; wherefore, he worketh in me to do according to His will."

I reject your premise ;-)

I don't believe that Moroni saying the plates of Nephi are of value is a statement of perfection. He does not edit them, and we get Nephi's words direct.

Nephi asks us to not chew him out over mistakes. I like to trust Nephi.

Further, Nephi writing things that are pleasing unto God appears to be a basic phrase that means spiritually related things. He discusses how this is different than the book of the kings he had already started. It doesn't mean that God ensured everything in there was perfect or some philosphies of men didn't creep in.

Here is the important part to me: The Book of Mormon, including Nephi's book, will get one nearer to God. It doesn't mean it's perfect or that some doctrinal elements might be iffy. But at it's core, being witness of Christ and also being a witness of God leading and blessing the lives of others, it accomplishes its mission. Nephi accomplishes his mission.

I take Nephi at his word on what he remembers Lehi saying. Suppose is not the same as know or had a vision, etc. It doesn't mean he wasn't inspired in his comments, but it indicates he might not have it fully down yet. This is no different than when apostles and prophets today suppose something. You should still listen and search and ponder and pray. 

13 hours ago, juliann said:

Eliza R. Snow could take both of them. At once.

Well... right.

I thought we were going on pure speculation challenges. 

Eliza is just a given. She'll always win...

 

And then she'll write a song about it.

11 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Moses, Chapter 5:

" 10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.

 11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient."

This is an excellent scripture adding context. This then would be the fourth supporting scripture.

Since it comes from the Book of Moses, which is an expansion of Genesis, it is reasonable then to assume that "the prophet" that Lehi does not name is in fact Moses. Further, it would imply that the Genesis that Lehi had access to on the brass plates was closer to the Book of Moses version than the current form of the first chapters of Genesis.

It is interesting that Adam and Eve don't say they never had joy before. Instead, they are talking of the joy of the redemption. Adam because he will see God again in the flesh, and Even because of redemption in general (which allows one to see God, in the flesh). 

The good and evil is related to knowledge. I am uncertain of how this translates into Eden. It seems unlikely that they could never have hurt or offended or upset the other if they stayed there a thousand years. I suspect it has some other meaning that simply doing good or bad, but is more closely tied to understanding the choices and what they mean, ie, choosing Satan versus choosing God. It's not the same as choosing to be selfish or being upset, because knowledge is key to understanding where our hearts will go. 

Assuming then that Lehi was reading a version of Genesis closer to the Book of Moses, then I still believe he may have extrapolated a bit too far, or that Nephi, in writing it down later, shortened it and thus lost a nuance more evident in the actual text. Perhaps Lehi even shortened it assuming that those around him knew what he was referencing to and didn't feel a need to use more words for what he thought was a given.

Interesting stuff.

1 minute ago, filovirus said:

In their prime or while prophet?

Definitely in their prime. 

As prophet... hmm... hard to say. George suffered a lot in later prophet years and had some medications that would have likely impaired him. Don't know enough of Joseph Fielding Smith when older.

This is way more interesting that Thor vs. Zeus. 

Just now, Avatar4321 said:

What type of fight are we talking about here?

Well.. I am open to both a formal debate as well as fisticuffs. 

And I think George would win in both cases. 

Joseph F. Smith certainly wrote a lot, but speculated much. George I think kept it simpler and knew what he knew and focused on that.

On a fight, George did suffer from Lupus later in life, but early on was pretty fit and surveyed railroads. He was also a pretty awesome Boy Scout. Joseph Fielding Smith though had some military service and a rougher earlier life. You might think that would favor him, but George just had a certain tenacity that always appealed to me. I think he would have taken a hit and keep on ticking. 

Also, I think George Albert Smith would win. 

 

Just sayin.

Which is more important?

1) Studying your scriptures

2) Praying

 

While we are at it, who would win in a fight? Joseph F. Smith or George Albert Smith? 

I like these games that don't have an actual answer and where the reality is that both are an important part of our faith that cannot be separated. .;-)

CV75,

No doubt on the purpose of the Book of Mormon. Since my degree was in ancient studies and focused on textual criticism, I am happy to accept the purpose of the entirety of the Book of Mormon while also diving into the sitz in leben of the text and how we have interpreted it over the years and why.

Lehi of course had documented visions and God spoke to him a few times it appears, in addition to having the Liahona. That is why this particular pericope, which appears to have had considerable influence on our understanding of the nature of the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, and the Fall, is, according to Lehi, a supposition. 

It could be Lehi is right. It could be he is wrong. Based on the theological difficulties and its conflict with other revealed scripture, I am leaning towards Lehi being off on parts of it.

One of the interesting things about the Bible is that it is full of the additions, corruptions, cultural baggage, and other items of the recorders, scribes, and people. It's not just the verses, but the rich tapestry surrounding it that makes it so fascinating. Of course, this also means that not all of it it binding doctrinally, since some were for a people or place or were not necessarily inspired. This is why women can cut their hair, among other things.

The Book of Mormon is also a record from an actual people with all of the same ramifications that comes with that. For instance, I have long thought that Zarahemla didn't exactly openly embrace wandering outsiders and make them kings over them, but since the Nephites wrote the records, the victor always talks about how they brought light to the savages.  Moroni viewed history through the lens of hindsight and chose material accordingly. Items like that.

Today in scripture study, we were reading 2 Nephi 2. Lehi is talking to his son Jacob, when in verse 17 he says:

Quote

And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that...

After which we get what he says are his thoughts after reading the scriptures. In Verse 30 he says this is based on the words of "the prophet", but we don't know who that is, because his exposition doesn't align with Isaiah (usually called the prophet), or what we have of Zenos or Zenock (I would guess Zenos is the source based on theme), or any other Old Testament prophet. It could have been Moses and the book of Genesis, in which case he goes further than the text allows.

Lehi then elaborates on his thoughts, and gives several scriptures that we teach doctrinally. This is like taking something Joseph F. Smith or Bruce R. McConkie expounded on from reading scriptures, and making it binding on members to believe, or saying women really shouldn't cut their hair.

What are some of the doctrines found in Lehi's expounding not found elsewhere or ever said as having been revealed?

1. if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden.... all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. (v22)
2. they would have had no children;
3. they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
4. Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

Let's address each of these.

1) " if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden.... all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. (v22)"

This seems obvious on the surface. No fall, you get to stay. The nuance is in the state of things, as also if this supposition holds true. I am not aware of any revealed scripture that says that God never intended to give Adam and Eve knowledge to progress and eventually leave. In fact, in the temple motif, it is portrayed that Satan thought he could take over God's role of giving the fruit, and he is ticked that God punishes him for doing what God would have done. Further, when God speaks after the fruit is given, he tells Jehovah that they promised to go down and visit Adam. I assume, but cannot prove, that it would be to help them progress. It seems that without Lehi's thoughts on the fall, we are left with what most of Christendom believes: That Adam and Eve could have stayed there forever and had kids. I have not done a thorough search of this, but in a brief overview simply don't see any other scriptures that indicate that Adam and Eve would have stayed there forever. This ties in to the next item.

2) "they would have had no children;"

Again, without this, there is no solid basis for saying there were not or could not have been children before the fall. Our view of this is based off of the following three scriptures:

Quote

 

2 Nephi 2:23 -  And they would have had no children;

Genesis 3:16 - Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; 

Moses 4:22 - Unto the woman, I, the Lord God, said: I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children,

 

However, if you take out Lehi's musing's the scriptures in Genesis and Moses do not indicate she could not have had children before the fall. It only says her bearing of kids will be greatly multiplied, and that they will be brought forth in sorrow. Much of Judaism and Christianity do not read Genesis 3:16 and read it to mean there were no kids beforehand. In fact, the Babylonian Talmud has a tradition on these verses that Cain had a twin sister and they were born before the fall, while Abel and his twin sister were born after. 

So without Lehi's musing, there seems to be no revealed doctrine that says that Adam and Even could not have a) continued forever in the garden of Eden without taking the fruit (though the temple language indicates that God would have lead them out himself eventually) or b) that they could not have had children without the fall. 

3) "they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin."

This is also not found elsewhere. In fact, I find it troubling and contradictory doctrinally. Eve clearly had sorrow at the thought of there being "no other way". I find it difficult to believe that there never would have been disagreement. In fact, Eve chose to transgress when she chose to eat the fruit, even before it touched her lips. There are other instances in the garden they would have known joy, happiness, etc.I think Lehi takes it too far in his effort to teach about the need for opposition in all things (which is good doctrine).

4) "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy."

This is basically reiterating  item 2. No where else is it said that Adam fell that men might be (except in the temple motif, which we have been told is a motif). Also, when Adam says it, it is in reference to him finding out he's about to be a lone man in the garden. The funny thing is that in the Temple motif, there is no indication they wouldn't have had children in the garden. The dilemma comes when Eve reminds him they were commanded to multiply, and that since she'll be cast out, he'll be a lone man. Hard to have kids that way, and so Adam chooses to join her. The assumption inherent in it is that neither Adam nor Eve seem to be aware they couldn't have kids in the garden, only that they needed to be together.

So those are my thoughts from today's scripture reading. Maybe I am missing some reference scriptures. I am interested in the thoughts of others.

I am not particularly bothered by this. It doesn't affect my salvation. It actually adds flavor to the Book of Mormon, having a prophet musing, and I appreciate he even says he is "supposing" based on what he has read. Perhaps of course we will get the words of the unnamed prophet, and it will have a revelation on the matter. He is likely referring to Moses, but we don't know. Either way, without knowing who he is talking about, it's hard to say if the source material is clearer.

Personally, I think that Lehi's commentary brings in all sorts of mental gymnastic needs. It requires God to set up opposing commandments, when it could have been that God would have helped them progress later. We have to create reasons why Adam and Eve were incapable of having children before the fall. We have to create a view of the Garden as being in stasis with no joy or sin possible, which doesn't jive with other scriptures or make sense. Did they feel no joy when God visited them? Were they without emotion? No joy to be together, to talk, to care for the earth?

How much of our views of the Garden and Adam and Eve are based off of Lehi "suppose[ing]"?

 

 

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

God needs a stick... I think it is also a Promised Land thing. 

Except God told Nephi his Promised Land was only for the righteous, and if they became wicked they would be destroyed. 

Laman and Lemuel and the sons of Ishmael were not righteous by any measure. They are brought in as wicked people with Nephi. 

I agree about the need for a stick. It makes sense. However, it seems Nephi when writing had at times a contradictory view from God about who should be there and who should not. 

Further, since I believe the Lehites came into the land with other inhabitants already around, and we assume those inhabitants were not righteous Israelites, they would have done a fine job of being that stick. Adding Laman and Lemuel in seems to have been an act of self-sabotage.

The only possible explanation I have for it, which is not supported by some of Nephi's writings about messages from heaven regarding who should inhabit the land, is that the Lamanites acted as a sort of buffer between the Nephites and the other inhabitants. Perhaps their war-like nature kept the other city-states from being able to reach and overrun the Nephite settlements. Related, if the Lamanites were fighting on two fronts, it might explain why they were rarely able to do much damage to the Nephite settlements. They would always have to hold some back if they didn't have peace on the non-Nephite borders.

 

I think the more complicated problem has to do with Laman and Lemuel.

Nephi kills Laban, because God says it's important that the people not dwindle in unbelief. Of course, they eventually do, but that's significantly later. The point is God repeatedly says he intends to establish a righteous people.

Yet Laman and Lemuel are brought along. After trying several times to kill Nephi, after an Angel they can never seem to remember (along with other big spiritual events these wicked brothers have), I always ponder why in the world God didn't just tell Lehi to let them go. Instead, they come and immediately become a problem upon Lehi's death, trying to kill Nephi and threaten his people to the point Nephi and others have to flee. 

These brothers end up in a land reserved for the righteous.

The point is made that the Lamanites (and other -ites of that line) are used by God to stir up the Nephites to repentance when the screw up. And it occasionally works. Still, I've always been baffled why God brings them along to the Promised Land kicking and screaming and murderous intending. I am sure some of Nephi's descendants would have become wicked on their own. It's all a bit baffling and is one of the questions I'll have to ask when I get to the next side. 

The point being that the original name of Zep-tah does appear to be of Egyptian origin. That's a nice evidence for the Book of Abraham as representing a legitimate ancient record or narrative (depending on your view).

It does not appear to mean what the Book of Abraham says "which, in the Chaldea, signifies Egypt, which signifies, that which is forbidden." The daughter technically doesn't appear to originally be named, so perhaps it is referring to the meaning of the daughter's name. The sentence structure is not great.

Still, that their is an ancient tie-in, and the verse itself is vague on what signifies "that which is forbidden", is interesting. 

 

I'm doing a word study on the concept of seed as Nephi understood it.

In the vision, it appears he and the angel at times, and without any explanatory notice, use seed to refer to direct genetic lineage in one moment, and metaphorical lineage in another (ie, those who follow the truth of the gospel versus those who deny it). 

As Latter-day Saints, we regularly do the same. The principle of adoption augments and blurs the line of descent concepts. 

Elder Anderson may have meant genetic descendants. Statistically that is possible. However, nothing in his address that I noticed indicates he could not have also or only referred to spiritual/tradition seed.

Yup.

And some interesting potential etymology for Zep-tah too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptus

 

From the wiki: 

Quote

 

This variant name could very well reflect the Egyptian name SЗt-Ptḥ, "Daughter-of-Ptah" (the -t- in SЗt is silent) which is known from the Middle Kingdom into the late period.[7] Moreover, This recalls the syncretic mythology in the Late Egyptian Hieratic story of "Astarte and the Sea," wherein Semitic Astarte is also called "Daughter-of-Ptah."[8] She is, therefore, the equivalent of Hathor (E.g. Ḥt-Ḥr "House-of-Horus [Sky]"), who is also the daughter of Ptah,[9] and who is the same constellation as Virgo, and which is the first month of the Inundation season (on the Palermo Stone, each king is accompanied by his mother's name and by the measured height of the inundation in September[10]). For, after all, "when this woman discovered the land it was under water" (Abr 1:24). Moreover, Hathor is the Eye and Mother of Re, the first king of Egypt (Book of the Divine Cow).

The "Mother of the King of Upper & Lower Egypt" (mwt niswt-biti or mwt niswt), i.e., of the living king, was addressed as "God's daughter" sЗt nṯr,[11] namely the daughter of Ptah, as is the apparent case here with Zeptah/Egyptus, who is both mother of the king of Egypt and the granddaughter of Noah. This is significant since Ptah is a parallel for Noah in that, as the Blacksmith-God of Thebes (Hephaistos-Vulcan), he is the equivalent of the Phoenician Craftsman-God Khousor, which is Ugaritic Kṯr, Kothar, Kothar-wa-Khasis, "The-Very-Skillful-and-Intelligent-One," which is the same character as the Sumero-Akkadian Noahs: Utnapishtim (in the Gilgamesh Epic), Atra-Ḫasīs, and Ziusudra (Khousor = Ptah at Ugarit).[12]

 

 

Nevo,

There are multiple locations and spellings proposed. The question is which location was the actual one. Origen didn't pull it out of the blue. The area was already associated with the baptismal site, and Bethany had geographic problems. 

For the believer of the Book of Mormon, it is simply a) Lehi/Nephi attesting that Origen guess right or b) a translation into what was already familiar with the people in Joseph Smith's time, and the original could have been different.

That Lehi seems to mention it as a place that he was already familiar with, and Bethabara was a known place, while Bethany may not have been, would indicate that Bethabara affirms Origen.

It is of course possible that Joseph Smith is the one who got it wrong because it was fraudulent. My point is that the Bethabara/Bethany issue is what I consider a neutral point. Both sides can make a decent case for how it can support their own viewpoints. You don't typically influence too many people with it.

There are, for the record, something like five or six sites and spellings currently proposed.

Also, there is some reason to believe that "Bethabara beyond Jordan" could have been original. It's really one of those things where I don't feel it's strong either way. It's attested as Bethabara in many different manuscripts, even early ones, and in Syriac, Armenian, etc as well as a few early Greek manuscripts. I haven't looked too deep into it since encountering it years ago. There is enough precedence to say "who knows", and then for some aspiring student to write a dissertation on one side, and another to write on another.

Nevo,

It's not quite the same thing. Although the phrase Bethabara beyond Jordan is the same for that small part, it is sandwiched in a larger verse. 

This is different from the preceding two verses which pull from three Gospels, is bullet form, and is 99% from the KJV. 

Of course, the difference is nominal in some respects. That the phrase is in there about Bethabara indicates it is a continuation of the bullet point method, but the form of the verse itself is substantially different enough that it is less direct.

In unrelated news, I just noticed my post count has been dropped to 426! I used to have a thousand or so. I guess all the forum changes over the years means it wasn't all kept. I feel... lessened. Oh Board, where is my Glory, that I might boast, not of myself, but of thine habitations and the beauty of the eternities before? And... perhaps... also boast a little of myself...

Been quite a while since I posted. Typical for the last few years. Not like back in the early days over a decade ago when I posted several times a day. Nice to see some familiar faces around.

Anyway, came across an interesting item I have not seen referenced before. A FairMormon article might be good for it. I may have missed it, but I didn't see one on these verses.

 

I was reading 1 Nephi 10:7-8 with my wife (as part of pre-reading for Sunday School). It reads:

Quote

 

7 And he spake also concerning a prophet who should come before the Messiah, to prepare the way of the Lord—

 8 Yea, even he should go forth and cry in the wilderness: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight; for there standeth one among you whom ye know not; and he is mightier than I, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose. And much spake my father concerning this thing.

 

This got me pondering about what was said in the New Testament about John the Baptist, what he said, etc.

 

Let me break down the prophecies Lehi makes, in bullet form, which is essentially what Nephi gives us when quoting his dad.

he should go forth and

• cry in the wilderness:
• Prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight;
• for there standeth one among you whom ye know not;
• and he is mightier than I,
• whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

 

Let's explore where these are referenced:

Quote

Isaiah 40:3 - The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

This aligns with 

"he should go forth and cry in the wilderness"

and 

"Prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight;"

It's not word perfect. For instance, Isaiah says "make straight in the desert a highway for our God" and Lehi says "and make his paths straight". 

So we see an Isaiah (2nd Isaiah) reference for part of Lehi's prophecy. This isn't surprising, since Isaiah would have received the same thing by revelation from the same God. The similarity is obvious. And if you hold there was no 2nd Isaiah, then Lehi could have taken it straight form there.

What about the rest though?

Here is where it gets interesting.

Let's look at the description of John in each of the four Gospels. I'll cut to the chase and say there are word for word quotations. I'll bold the areas in each one where is an exact phrase, and add italics when it is a minor change from "cry" to "crying"  or "he" versus "one" :

Quote

 

Matthew 3:2-3, 11

And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

... he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear:

 

Here we see that Matthew is quoting Isaiah also. The version from Matthew through the KJV is word perfect to what we have from Lehi/Nephi. Only that phrase matches up perfectly.

Note that the JST has the following:

Quote

JST Matthew 1:27-28

John answered them, saying; I baptize with water, but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;

He it is of whom I bear record. He is that prophet, even Elias, who, coming after me, is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose, or whose place I am not able to fill; for he shall baptize, 

So the JST changes the order a bit and adds two lines that Nephi cites word for word. Keep those two added ones in mind.

Quote

 

Mark 1:3, 7 

The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

 And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.

 

You can see Mark and Matthew both have the variation of Isaiah's "Prepare ye the way of the Lord." I am not sure if it's like that in the Septuagint or a DSS. Would be interesting to find out. Regardless, we assume Matthew referenced Mark, so we should expect some crossover. 

Quote

 

Luke 3:4, 16

As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

 

 There's that rephrasing of Isaiah again. 3 of the four gospels have this phrasing. The Gospel of John doesn't, but he rephrases it as coming from the mouth of John the Baptist 1st person instead of as a report. Still, John holds close to it.

Luke also has a few areas where he is very close to Lehi/Nephi. 

Quote

 

John 1:23, 26-27

He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.

John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;

He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

 

Here we have two phrases that are word from word as recorded in 1 Nephi 10:7-8.

To compare more directly, let's revisit the bullet points from Lehi/Nephi:

he should go forth and

• cry in the wilderness: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight; = cry[ing] in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. (Matthew 3:3 - variation of crying to cry)
• for there standeth one among you whom ye know not; = there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; (John 1:26)
• and he is mightier than I, = [one] mightier than I (Mark 1:7 and Luke 3:16 - change of "he is" to "one")
• whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose = whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose (John 1:27)

It is interesting because very little is said of John by Lehi that Nephi records. What we have from them is a bullet summary of some key things John will say. Instead of being roughly paraphrased along the same lines as what is recorded in the Gospels, which one would expect and in fact does see between the Gospels themselves, we see that each bullet point is taken word for word, pieced together, from the four gospels. There is, essentially, not a single original word in the Lehi/Nephi blurb on John the Baptist.

 

Same general possibilities explanations, all valid, come with this interesting pericope:

1) Critical: Joseph took key bullet points from the Gospels, adding in a bit from each into Lehi's short blurb. Evidence of fraud.

2) Semi-Critical: Joseph took key bullet points from the Gospels, adding in a bit from each into Lehi's short blurb. Evidence that when it came to itmes found in the KJV, Joseph was given the latitude to pull from the KJV when it essentially says the same thing. This one is more problematic that using this argument in other pericopies since it would have made more sense to take it directly from one of the gospels, not pick and choose bullet points, word for word.

3) Faithful: John the Baptist said lots of things. The writers of the gospels each remembered something slightly different from his ministry or had access to it. Lehi received a revelation, and the main phrases are represented in part in each of the gospels. This does not necessarily address why Lehi's blurb as recorded by Nephi is written in bullet point / list form, and that they are word perfect to elements from Matthew, John, and Luke, KJV translation. In light of similar word similarities from the New Testament, any arguments previously made for why this is so from the faithful perspective should still hold true.

I am sure there are other perspectives, which I am interested in hearing also.

I am not sure I have a real point to this, other than I found the study effort yielded somewhat surprising results. What at first appeared to be a general cross-referencing exercise turned into finding exact phrasing in ways one would not normally expect. 

 

 

Or he would agree with you, right?

 

 

Stop with the snide remarks. I said no such thing. The greater context of my remarks inthis thread demonstrates I don't believe he would necessarily agree with me. He simply hasn't engaged in the larger corpus.

 

Do you have something material to contribute? Because your two comments in this thread have been one line snide remarks. Stop it.