Anachronisms Aplenty In The Bom

[SolarPowered]

Setting all of that to one side, the language of the BoM and the JST look to me more like an example of

mostly ignorant copying from the biblical scriptures than it does like parallel, largely BCE documents.

This is not the forum I would go into, in order to change people's minds -- but it is sometimes fascinating

to watch the LDS apologists squirm and flip-flop mentally, trying to reconcile what the rest of us in the

world see as obvious problems. The classic example of this is found in the JST, where the two different

accounts of the death of Judas are combined into a single, absurd story.

I take exception to conflating the Book of Mormon with the JST. They are clearly very different beasts. In my opinion, the JST is clearly, at best, problematic. There are a lot of examples where Joseph's edits that became known was the JST or "IVB" appear to clearly be quite uninspired, such as the many times he takes a phrase of the general form "it repented the Lord" and turns the passage completely on its head to make somebody else repent, when the only problem is that the English word "to repent" changed meaning in the time following the King James translation. On the other hand, there are some quite spectacular things to come out of that effort, such as the Book of Moses, which is in very good harmony with Enoch literature that wasn't available to Joseph.

All of which is to say, I don't understand the process that produced the JST--there apparently was a lot of Joseph trying to figure things out on his own, with occasional revelations added into the mix.

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, appears to me to be a rather literal translation of the record of a people who left Jerusalem in around 600 BC.

I don't see any problem at all with the word "synagogue" in the BoM. According to my dictionary, the word refers to a congregation of Jews, or to the building in which such a congregation would meet. It seems to me to be a perfectly appropriate word to apply to congregations of Jews, and their buildings, in the BoM peoples. I can't think of any word that would be more appropriate than "synagogue."

[Hammer]

Such things may fly in LDS Sunday meetings -- to the remainder of the world they appear nonsensical.

I will explain the scriptures significance before I post them so that you will know what to look for.

Men call the things of God foolishness or in your venacular, nonsensical. Doing so is not looked upon with any acceptance by the Lord.

Here are only a few:

1 Cor. 1: 25

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

2 Ne. 9: 28

28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

3 Ne. 2: 2

2 Imagining up some vain thing in their hearts, that it was wrought by men and by the power of the devil, to lead away and deceive the hearts of the people; and thus did Satan get possession of the hearts of the people again, insomuch that he did blind their eyes and lead them away to believe that the doctrine of Christ was a foolish and a vain thing.

[Bill Hamblin]

The rest is purely fallacious ad hominem argumentation that's completely disconnected from your admission to UD. If you're using the term "anti-Mormon" in the same way your colleague Daniel Peterson does, then it's not a label I mind bearing.

Somehow, though, I think you mean to imply something with a bit more bite.

Uncle Dale raised the anti-Mormon issue, not me.

I believe you are an anti-Mormon in precisely the sense Dan uses the term, nothing more.

Do you have anything substantive to say about synagogues, or have you conceded the issue?

[Uncle Dale]

Men call the things of God foolishness or in your venacular, nonsensical....

What things of God has anybody in this thread called nonsensical? In fact, the Evangelicals find great use

of Paul's epistles in preaching against the beliefs of Mormonism.

As for using the Book of Mormon, to prove the Book of Mormon -- that is not the sort of witness most

rational people would accept.

Mormons may believe that they have a monoplogy upon "the things of God;" but that makes them little

different from numerous other denominations and sects which make similar claims. However, in supporting

and re-energizing their own membership, such claims may prove of use.

I sometimes wonder if posters such as yourself are seriously trying to engage in dialogue with non-members;

or whether you are simply shoring up the possibly weak and wavering testimonies of some other Mormons?

Whatever the case may be, you seem unprepared to add anything substantial to the topic of this thread --

or am I misjudging you? Perhaps you have something truly interesting to say about BoM anachronisms???

UD

[Hammer]

Men call the things of God foolishness or in your venacular, nonsensical....

What things of God has anybody in this thread called nonsensical? In fact, the Evangelicals find great use

of Paul's epistles in preaching against the beliefs of Mormonism.

As for using the Book of Mormon, to prove the Book of Mormon -- that is not the sort of witness most

rational people would accept.

Mormons may believe that they have a monoplogy upon "the things of God;" but that makes them little

different from numerous other denominations and sects which make similar claims. However, in supporting

and re-energizing their own membership, such claims may prove of use.

I sometimes wonder if posters such as yourself are seriously trying to engage in dialogue with non-members;

or whether you are simply shoring up the possibly weak and wavering testimonies of some other Mormons?

Whatever the case may be, you seem unprepared to add anything substantial to the topic of this thread --

or am I misjudging you? Perhaps you have something truly interesting to say about BoM anachronisms???

UD

Such things may fly in LDS Sunday meetings -- to the remainder of the world they appear nonsensical.

Tell me if you would how this sentence from your post substantiates the topic? Or is it just more judgment frapping?

[Uncle Dale]

Tell me if you would how this sentence from your post substantiates the topic? Or is it just more judgment frapping?

As I recall, I already answered that. Some of us post our opinions in these threads -- others are more

circumspect and appear to rely more heavily upon quoting what they feel are authorative pronouncements

from others. I do not expect you to agree with all of my opinions -- just as I doubt you expect me to agree

with all of yours.

However, to get back on topic. I was attempting to address how non-Mormons tend to view LDS oddities

and unique precepts. And, in that regard, I would welcome your suggestions on how to better portray the

fact that non-members tend to view such things differently than Mormons.

UD

[Hammer]

Tell me if you would how this sentence from your post substantiates the topic? Or is it just more judgment frapping?

As I recall, I already answered that. Some of us post our opinions in these threads -- others are more

circumspect and appear to rely more heavily upon quoting what they feel are authorative pronouncements

from others. I do not expect you to agree with all of my opinions -- just as I doubt you expect me to agree

with all of yours.

However, to get back on topic. I was attempting to address how non-Mormons tend to view LDS oddities

and unique precepts. And, in that regard, I would welcome your suggestions on how to better portray the

fact that non-members tend to view such things differently than Mormons.

UD

Really. I would think that since the Chosen people are always called parculiar that oddies are who we are. How others view us is well documented in both modern and historical as well as scriptural lectures and accounts.

1 Jn. 3: 1, 17

1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

John 15: 19

19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Seeing our miracles and dependence upon the Lord as a perfect butt of a joke doesn't seem to be the MO I would use to make intelligent discussion. It is simple enough, to know God and accepting of His works or even being Spiritually intune enough to see the miracles of life as His handiwork doesn't come to everyone. It is called spiritual blindness.

In this spiritual blindness and hardness of heart, tales of miracles do sound like silly stories. It is a 'fruit' by which we may know men whether or not they are sons of God, or sons of the world.

[Uncle Dale]

It is called spiritual blindness. ...

Well then, I suppose that ends this conversation.

Have a nice day -- be kind to those less fortunate than yourself -- don't take any wooden nickels.

UD

[Matt Andrews]

In this spiritual blindness and hardness of heart, tales of miracles do sound like silly stories. It is a 'fruit' by which we may know men whether or not they are sons of God, or sons of the world.

God just appeared to me in the form of a flying squirrel and told me to tell you to send me $1000, or he will smite us both with a smiting that is exceedingly smiteful. Yea, even he shall smite us with a flaming sword. Please contact me as soon as possible, for both of our sakes.

If that sounds like a silly story to you, that is how you can know you are just a son of the world, instead of a son of God.

(Uncle Dale is right. These kind of comments are conversation stoppers. It appears you are saying "You are wrong because I believe you are wrong, and until you agree with me, you will continue to be wrong. Oh, and by the way, you're headed for eternal punishment.")

[Uncle Dale]

that is how you can know you are just a son of the world, instead of a son of God....

No doubt Bro. Hammer possesses a certain degree of spiritual discernment, by the grace of God. He is

at least interested in things godly -- and that is not a bad first step.

There is an old saying, that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. We are all on different

levels in various aspects of our spirituality. If Bro. Hammer is a little more loving or Christ-like than you

and I, then we should all three praise God for that gift. And, if he is a little less so, then perhaps it is our

duty to pray for him.

All that having been said, Bro. Hammer does not strike me (no pun intended) as being a born-again Christian.

But then again; what do I know of such things?

Your Uncle Dale

[Matt Andrews]

Perhaps you are right, and Hammer has been gifted with superior spiritual sight. It is quite frustrating, however, for those of us left to fend our way in the dark with only those particular gifts God has seen fit to give us, to be told our gifts are useless because we don't have the same gift God gave Bro. Hammer. And, to boot, that to avoid damnation, we'll simply have to take Bro. Hammer's word for what he sees, even though we lack the very gift that would allow us to verify the trustworthiness of his claim versus the claims of others.

Quite frustrating, indeed.

[Uncle Dale]

Perhaps you are right, and Hammer has been gifted with superior spiritual sight. It is quite frustrating, however, for those of us left to fend our way in the dark with only those particular gifts God has seen fit to give us, to be told our gifts are useless because we don't have the same gift God gave Bro. Hammer. And, to boot, that to avoid damnation, we'll simply have to take Bro. Hammer's word for what he sees, even though we lack the very gift that would allow us to verify the trustworthiness of his claim versus the claims of others.

Quite frustrating, indeed.

No doubt our friend has a Bishop and a Stake President as well. If those men think well of him and support

him, then perhaps that is enough.

But if that is truly so, I would expect that Hammer would here disclose who he is, and what ward or branch

he attends. Spiritual guidance from anonymous web-voices is problematic.

Dale R. Broadhurst

Hilo, Hawaii

web-host of OliverCowdery.com

[cksalmon]

Furthermore, the Greek sunagoge occurs over 200 times in the Septuagint, translating either 'edah or qahal. It is not clear to me why it is anachronistic in the BOM, but not in the Septuagint.

I'd be interested to know how many of those 200 occurences of συναγωγὴ in LXX refer to buildings, "which were built after the manner of the Jews," and inside which sermons were preached, rather than more generically to gatherings of people--whatever the focus of those gatherings happened to be--religious or not. What's apparently anachronistic is not the occurence of the word itself, but the use to which it's put in BoM: i.e., to describe physical structures built after the manner of the Jews.

Best.

CKS

[SolarPowered]

So, are you saying that the Jews didn't build any structures to meet in for religious purposes prior to the exodus of Lehi & Co.?

[Not quite me]

So, are you saying that the Jews didn't build any structures to meet in for religious purposes prior to the exodus of Lehi & Co.?

Maybe this will help (from our friendly Wikipedia):

"Before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, communal prayers centered around the korbanot ("sacrificial offerings") brought by the kohanim ("Jewish priests") in the Holy Temple. The all-day Yom Kippur service , in fact, was an event in which the congregation both observed the movements of the kohen gadol ("Jewish high priest") as he offered the day's sacrifices and prayed for his success.

The destructions of Solomon's Temple, and later the Second Temple, and the dispersion of the Jews into the Jewish diaspora, threatened the nation's focus and unity. At the time of the Babylonian captivity the Men of the Great Assembly began the process of formalizing and standardizing Jewish services and prayers that would not depend on the functioning of the Temple in Jerusalem. Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, one of the leaders at the end of the Second Temple era, promulgated the idea of creating individual houses of worship in whatever locale Jews found themselves. This contributed to the concept of "portable Judaism," which was part of what contributed to the saving of the Jewish people by maintaining a unique identity and way of worship, according to many historians. Thus, even now, whenever any group of ten men comes together, they form a minyan, and are eligible to conduct public prayer services, usually in a synagogue.

In Eastern Europe, synagogues were established by like-minded groups of people. Such a synagogue was known as a kloiz, and was often delineated by the professions of its worshippers: e.g. "the tailor's kloiz," the "water-carrier's kloiz," etc. One kloiz which still bears that name today is the Breslov kloiz built by Nathan of Breslov in the city of Uman, Ukraine in 1834. Today, this kloiz accommodates worshippers in the annual Breslover Rosh Hashana kibbutz (prayer gathering)."

So, yes, building structures for worship is a later development.

[cksalmon]

So, are you saying that the Jews didn't build any structures to meet in for religious purposes prior to the exodus of Lehi & Co.?

Hey SolarPowered--

No, I'm not saying that. We know that they built at least one building for religious purposes prior to that time: the Temple.

Best.

CKS

[Not quite me]

So, are you saying that the Jews didn't build any structures to meet in for religious purposes prior to the exodus of Lehi & Co.?

Hey SolarPowered--

No, I'm not saying that. We know that they built at least one building for religious purposes prior to that time: the Temple.

Best.

CKS

I was wondering how you could wave that one off. Clearly, the Nephites are supposed to have modeled their synagogues after buildings that didn't exist. That's the problem with anachronisms; they're not supposed to be there, and yet here this one is.

[Uncle Dale]

Furthermore, the Greek sunagoge occurs over 200 times in the Septuagint, translating either 'edah or qahal. It is not clear to me why it is anachronistic in the BOM, but not in the Septuagint.

I'd be interested to know how many of those 200 occurences of συναγωγὴ in LXX refer to buildings, "which were built after the manner of the Jews," and inside which sermons were preached, rather than more generically to gatherings of people--whatever the focus of those gatherings happened to be--religious or not. What's apparently anachronistic is not the occurence of the word itself, but the use to which it's put in BoM: i.e., to describe physical structures built after the manner of the Jews.

Best.

CKS

It occurs to me that the LXX was compiled at a late date and that a good deal of its contents are post-exilic.

Mention of synagogues in the later books of the Greek Bible would pose no serious problems, historically.

And use of that word, in a Greek text compiled during the Hellenistic period, for pre-exilic circumstances,

might not mean that the Israelites had synagogues where the Torah was kept, where rabbis taught, and

where the Jewish descendants of the Israelites were wont to meet on Saturdays in later centuries.

The semi-logical LDS position has yet to be stated here -- and that would be recourse to the latter day

precept of the "antiquity of the gospel." By use of that explanation, practically all anachronisms may be

swept away, under the belief that the "Nephite dispensation" was something parallel to the Mosaic

dispensation -- and that Nephite prophets regularly received revelatory updates on what their Jewish

cousins were doing after the exile. This explanation would introduce the word "synagogue" as a concept

provided to the Nephites and/or Mulekites in revelation. This explanation would also explain the Nephite

projection of the word backward into Israelite days as a simple linguistic innovation, used to speak of

the ancient gathering places of pre-exilic Judah.

Why haven't the TBMs opted for this conclusion? Did I miss something?

Uncle Dale

[Not quite me]

It occurs to me that the LXX was compiled at a late date and that a good deal of its contents are post-exilic.

Mention of synagogues in the later books of the Greek Bible would pose no serious problems, historically.

And use of that word, in a Greek text compiled during the Hellenistic period, for pre-exilic circumstances,

might not mean that the Israelites had synagogues where the Torah was kept, where rabbis taught, and

where the Jewish descendants of the Israelites were wont to meet on Saturdays in later centuries.

The semi-logical LDS position has yet to be stated here -- and that would be recourse to the latter day

precept of the "antiquity of the gospel." By use of that explanation, practically all anachronisms may be

swept away, under the belief that the "Nephite dispensation" was something parallel to the Mosaic

dispensation -- and that Nephite prophets regularly received revelatory updates on what their Jewish

cousins were doing after the exile. This explanation would introduce the word "synagogue" as a concept

provided to the Nephites and/or Mulekites in revelation. This explanation would also explain the Nephite

projection of the word backward into Israelite days as a simple linguistic innovation, used to speak of

the ancient gathering places of pre-exilic Judah.

Why haven't the TBMs opted for this conclusion? Did I miss something?

Uncle Dale

That seems on par with the idea that textual dependence can be explained by God's using the same "inspiration" to produce disparate sets of scriptures. There really is no answer to this kind of deus ex machina explanation other than to say that one simply does not believe.

[Uncle Dale]

So, are you saying that the Jews didn't build any structures to meet in for religious purposes prior to the exodus of Lehi & Co.?

There weren't any Jews until after the exile. Consult your scriptures and let us know when the term first

begins to appear in the historical record.

My wife is a Jew of 60 generations or more. According to her, the Israelites of Judah were NOT Jews --

they were Israelites. The Jewish religion, as we comprehend it, was essentially a creation of the exile and

the early post-exilic period.

"Prior to the exodus of Lehi" would put us into the period of the Deuteronomic Reform, when all shrines

and high places of worship were being destroyed -- so that worship of YHWH would be centered in the

Jerusalem Temple. That period was NOT a time when any sort of rival places of worship were tolerated.

However -- as I mentioned earlier in this thread, the late Davidic monarchy was a period when various

prophetic and priestly schools (mostly composed of exiles from the north) were taking on a life of their

own. They were not synagogues, but they were groups of religious Israelites gathering in settings apart

from the Temple. Look there for your "Lehite synagogue."

Uncle Dale

[Not quite me]

There weren't any Jews until after the exile. Consult your scriptures and let us know when the term first

begins to appear in the historical record.

My wife is a Jew of 60 generations or more. According to her, the Israelites of Judah were NOT Jews --

they were Israelites. The Jewish religion, as we comprehend it, was essentially a creation of the exile and

the early post-exilic period.

"Prior to the exodus of Lehi" would put us into the period of the Deuteronomic Reform, when all shrines

and high places of worship were being destroyed -- so that worship of YHWH would be centered in the

Jerusalem Temple. That period was NOT a time when any sort of rival places of worship were tolerated.

However -- as I mentioned earlier in this thread, the late Davidic monarchy was a period when various

prophetic and priestly schools (mostly composed of exiles from the north) were taking on a life of their

own. They were not synagogues, but they were groups of religious Israelites gathering in settings apart

from the Temple. Look there for your "Lehite synagogue."

Uncle Dale

Interesting, Dale. I'm constantly amazed at your depth and breadth of knowledge.

[SolarPowered]

Regarding the long quote from Wikipedia posted by "not quite me", I just happened upon a quote from Margaret Barker's The Great Angel regarding Jewish history prior to the exile:

Enormous developments took place in the wake of enormous destruction, and these two factors make certainty quite impossible. They make all certainty impossible, and this too must be acknowledged, for the customary descriptions of ancient Israel's religion are themselves no more than supposition.

My specific point here is that the Wikipedia article reads like many summary articles: It sounds like a plausible hypothesis about the history of the synagogue, constructed from a great deal of supposition to fill in a nearly complete lack of records from that time. The only way one could say that the Jews never built any buildings (other than the Temple) to meet in for religious study and/or worship is if some credible record from that time were to become available that categorically stated that such structures had never before been built. Absent that, all one has is speculation.

On the flip side of that, it beggers the imagination to think that the twelve tribes scattered throughout the borders of Solomon's Israel had no local religious facilities, and had to travel to Jerusalem to study or discus their religion, to learn of the Law of Moses, etc., etc., etc. You would have essentially no religion at all under those circumstances.

Thus,

1) There is clearly no proof offered that there were no religious buildings (other than the Temple) in Judea prior to Lehi's exodus. Thus, it is absurd to claim that the Book of Mormon's reference to such buildings is in error.

2) As a practical matter, logic dictates that there would have been such facilities in a state the size of Solomon's united kingdom. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable that there would have been prototypes that were copied by the BoM peoples.

Edit to add: It looks like Uncle Dale got there while I was posting:

However -- as I mentioned earlier in this thread, the late Davidic monarchy was a period when various

prophetic and priestly schools (mostly composed of exiles from the north) were taking on a life of their

own. They were not synagogues, but they were groups of religious Israelites gathering in settings apart

from the Temple. Look there for your "Lehite synagogue."

[Not quite me]

On the flip side of that, it beggers the imagination to think that the twelve tribes scattered throughout the borders of Solomon's Israel had no local religious facilities, and had to travel to Jerusalem to study or discus their religion, to learn of the Law of Moses, etc., etc., etc. You would have essentially no religion at all under those circumstances.

Are you suggesting that religion can't exist without buildings?

Thus,

1) There is clearly no proof offered that there were no religious buildings (other than the Temple) in Judea prior to Lehi's exodus. Thus, it is absurd to claim that the Book of Mormon's reference to such buildings is in error.

2) As a practical matter, logic dictates that there would have been such facilities in a state the size of Solomon's united kingdom. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable there there would have been prototypes that were copied by the BoM peoples.

Nope, no proof, I suppose (and the quote wasn't that long, was it?). I could do some more digging (quoting Wikipedia is laziness borne of it being late).

To recap, we have the historical item that local houses of worship were a Second Temple development, but logic dictates that there must have been some prototypes that the Nephites copied.

No offense, but do you see how strained this might sound to someone who has no emotional investment in Mormonism?

[cksalmon]

"Prior to the exodus of Lehi" would put us into the period of the Deuteronomic Reform, when all shrines

and high places of worship were being destroyed -- so that worship of YHWH would be centered in the

Jerusalem Temple. That period was NOT a time when any sort of rival places of worship were tolerated.

Good point. In the FARMS article which I linked to on page one, an attempt is made to connect "synagogues" with certain internal structures of city gates.

Lee I. Levine, a leading scholar on the history of the synagogue, has suggested that synagogues did exist before the Babylonian captivity in the form of chambers in the city gates. Such gates have been excavated by archaeologists at such important Old Testament sites as Beersheba, Gezer, Lachish, and Megiddo.

William J. Adams Jr. goes on to note:

Each of these [excavated gates] has

1. at least one chamber (which is nearly square) lined with stone benches around the interior walls (the benched chamber at Lachish has two tiers of benches),

2. a single doorway, and

3. where there is enough of the original wall left to determine it, a niche.

He then suggests his personal belief that the niches might have been used to for storing special ritual items.... Well, I'll just let him speak:

I suggest that these niches were used for storing special ritual items, perhaps even sacred scrolls.

Continuing:

Levine concludes that since later synagogues closely mirror the architecture of the gate chambers, these chambers may well have been the original synagogues. This conclusion is supported by a number of biblical passages that indicate that the city gate and its vicinity were the hub of a community's life.

What's particularly interesting is that Adams goes on to list the function of gates in general in pre-Exilic Israel:

The gate area served as

1. the market place (see 2 Kings 7:1),

2. the general court (see Genesis 23:10, 18; Deuteronomy 17:5, 21:19 and 22:24; Ruth 4:1â??12; Jeremiah 38:7; Daniel 2:48â??49; and Esther 5:9, 13; 6:10),

3. the royal court (see 2 Samuel 18:4 and 19:8; and 1 Kings 22:10, which equals 2 Chronicles 18:9), and

So far, so good.

Finally, though, he states that the gate functioned as

4. a place of worship (see 2 Kings 23:8 and Nehemiah 8:1).

Per his suggestion, I did see 2 Kings 23:8 and Nehemiah 8:1.

2 Kings 23:8

2Ki 23:5 And he deposed the priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained to make offerings in the high places at the cities of Judah and around Jerusalem; those also who burned incense to Baal, to the sun and the moon and the constellations and all the host of the heavens.

2Ki 23:6 And he brought out the Asherah from the house of the LORD, outside Jerusalem, to the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron and beat it to dust and cast the dust of it upon the graves of the common people.

2Ki 23:7 And he broke down the houses of the male cult prostitutes who were in the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the Asherah.

2Ki 23:8 And he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had made offerings, from Geba to Beersheba. And he broke down the high places of the gates that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on one's left at the gate of the city.

2Ki 23:9 However, the priests of the high places did not come up to the altar of the LORD in Jerusalem, but they ate unleavened bread among their brothers.

The context clearly indicates that whatever sort of worship was going on at the "high places of the gates" was illicit and needed to stopped.

Nehemiah 8.1

Neh 8:1 And all the people gathered as one man into the square before the Water Gate. And they told Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law of Moses that the LORD had commanded Israel.

Neh 8:2 So Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could understand what they heard, on the first day of the seventh month.

Neh 8:3 And he read from it facing the square before the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and the women and those who could understand. And the ears of all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law.

What Adams fails to realize (or fails to acknowledge) is that the Water Gate (Shaar Hamayim) was a south-facing Temple Mount Gate, above which was the ritual bathing area (mikvah) used by the High Priest once per year on Yom Kippur.

So, far from being evidence of synagogue worship away from the Temple, Nehemiah's reading of the Law before the Water Gate places us squarely at the Temple Mount.

Best.

CKS

[Bill Hamblin]

I can't believe the failure of the anti-Mormons here to grasp the clear import of contemporary scholarship on the origin of the Synagogue:

An increasing number of scholars over the past several decades have focused on the later First Temple period [i.e. the time of Lehi] as the context for synagogue origins. ... Of greater attraction has been the prsumed impact of Joseiah's reforms in 621 BCE, which prohibited worship in shrines and altars outside Jerusalem. This is considered by many to have been the crucial factor which led to the creation of a new relgious framework based on non-sacrificial worship. (Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, (Yale, 2000), 22)

Levine sites a dozen different scholars and their articles supporting this position. It's a non-issue which devolves into quibbling that what anti-Mormons think the BOM is describing as a synagogue does not match what they think the BOM should be describing as a synagogue.