Book Of Mormon Proven Right

[Zakuska]

Sure it does... Where did Joseph get the idea from? The Bible of course.

That it just happens to also coralate with the DSS and Jerusalem is a lucky guess.

[Mordecai]

Sure it does... Where did Joseph get the idea from? The Bible of course.

That it just happens to also coralate with the DSS and Jerusalem is a lucky guess.

Anyone ever read the "sacrament prayer" in the DSS? Anyone else think there is a striking similarity? I'm pretty sure that's not in the Bible.

[rhinomelon]

Could you post that text on here if you find it? That would be interesting. It's been a while since I really dug into the DSS.

[juliann]

I was reffering to Nag Hammadi, I apologize for the misimformation. Please excuse my previous post's as my premis was @ fault. I will take my stripes now.

Not much you are saying matches the Nag Hammadi, either. It was Montanus who was allowing women priests and the docetic crucifixion text is not in the Nag Hammadi.

[consiglieri]

I would like to thank sailgirl for bringing the references from Exodus into the discussion.

Those references talk about Moses leading the children of Israel three-days' journey into the desert to offer sacrifice. (Which we all know was a dodge to just try to get a head-start on Pharoah's army once he got wise.)

The Book of Mormon has Lehi, an observant Jew during the waning days of the First Temple, travel three days' journey into the wilderness, build an altar and offer sacrifice.

I have never heard Moses criticized for offering sacrifice at a location other than a temple, mainly because there was no temple in existence at the time; and the tabernacle was not even thought up yet.

On the other hand, I have heard the Book of Mormon criticized for having an observant Jew think he could properly offer sacrifice any place other than the temple in Jerusalem.

In a throw-away line, the Book of Mormon off-handedly remarks that Lehi first traveled three-days' journey into the wilderness; and then and only then did he offer sacrifice. Now a Dead Sea Scroll supports this kind of exception to the rule, and specifically limits it to locations that are at least a three-days' journey from Jerusalem.

I find this a remarkable hit in the Book of Mormon.

My question is: Am I still the only one who feels this way?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Zakuska]

I do too.

PS. Ha Ha... I'm the Boss of you.

[why me]

I would like to thank sailgirl for bringing the references from Exodus into the discussion.

I find this a remarkable hit in the Book of Mormon.

My question is: Am I still the only one who feels this way?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I get it. It is quite remarkable really. Of course that we must realize that any likeness to the bible must be plagarism from JS or Sidney. It is quite remarkable really. I have to admire JS and Sidney for remarkable bible study. I also admire them for their imagination in coopting that section of exodus to the book of mormon.

Of course, maybe just maybe, the story in the book of mormon would somehow resemble something from the bible. And the authors are the one's claimed in the book of mormon. But...I do think that for the critic, regardless if something is similiar in the bible, hence the plagarism, or since that something is not in the bible, the book of mormon must not be true is the normal response.

As you can see, the game is unwinable. Just accept it.

[consiglieri]

I'm not sure if I can accept it.

I'll have to check with my boss.

Zakuska?

[sailgirl7]

I would like to thank sailgirl for bringing the references from Exodus into the discussion.

Those references talk about Moses leading the children of Israel three-days' journey into the desert to offer sacrifice. (Which we all know was a dodge to just try to get a head-start on Pharoah's army once he got wise.)

The Book of Mormon has Lehi, an observant Jew during the waning days of the First Temple, travel three days' journey into the wilderness, build an altar and offer sacrifice.

I have never heard Moses criticized for offering sacrifice at a location other than a temple, mainly because there was no temple in existence at the time; and the tabernacle was not even thought up yet.

On the other hand, I have heard the Book of Mormon criticized for having an observant Jew think he could properly offer sacrifice any place other than the temple in Jerusalem.

In a throw-away line, the Book of Mormon off-handedly remarks that Lehi first traveled three-days' journey into the wilderness; and then and only then did he offer sacrifice. Now a Dead Sea Scroll supports this kind of exception to the rule, and specifically limits it to locations that are at least a three-days' journey from Jerusalem.

I find this a remarkable hit in the Book of Mormon.

My question is: Am I still the only one who feels this way?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I answered your question " Maybe you could share the references available to Joseph Smith that talk about it being okay to offer sacrifice away from the temple; and specifically three days' journey?"

That question is answered because it is clear that there are biblical references to making a sacrifice in the wilderness after a three day journey. Joseph no doubt would have been familiar with the story. Otherwise the answer is that he was "inspired" which makes the point of concidence irrelavent. You now want to talk about something else-the context.

Okay you want to talk about the Temple Scroll? You want to take one line from the scroll and say that it proves the Book of Mormon is true because of a similiarity. How about we examine the context of the entire Temple Scroll and let the people decide if there are more similiarities or differences. Let's look at the Temple Scroll shall we?

Four subjects are addressed in the Temple Scroll:

A large amount of Halakhot or religious ruling concerning mostly ritual cleanliness

Enumerating of sacrifices and offerings according to various festivals.

Details of the Temple.

Statutes of the King and army.

The religious ruling portion of the scroll is grouped together by there topics. This portion also contains many laws not found in the Pentateuch but can be found in the Mishnah in a slightly different form. These laws deal with cleanliness, ritual purity, sexual cleansing and activity, lepers, the maimed and the containers that carry sacrifices. Everything was to be overseen and dominated by the ascetic male priesthood that kept woman out. These stringent rules also do not allow the use of any toilets on the Sabbath.

The choice of calendars was a source of rivalry between communities. This scroll goes into great detail of how and when to celebrate each festival that it shares with most Essene groups. Several issues in this calendar brought it into conflict with rival groups such as the issue of days. The Temple Scroll broke the months into 30-day periods With an extra day at the end of every three months giving each year 364 days contrary to the Judaism. Secondly, the Temple Scroll had two new festivals; the Festival of New Wine celebrated 50 days after the Passover or Rising of Omer. As well as the Festival of New Oil celebrated after another 50 days. The issue of the Sabbath was also under debate. The Pharisees acceptance was that a day of rest was to fall on the first day of the Passover. The Essene community held it as the Saturday after the end of the Festival of Unleavened Bread. Mansoor believes as well that Christians have taken the influence of Easter Sunday from this concept.

The Temple Scroll dedicates almost half of its material to the furnishing and construction of the Temple. The primary message is to command God's faithful in building a proper Temple with detailed instructions. This Temple differs from the descriptions of the first and second Temple, Herod's temple, and Ezekiel's Temple. This scroll inferred that the Temple described with in it was to be the authority over Herod's Temple.

The statutes of the King and army are the last part of the scroll. This section gives discussion on the Kings safety directly from God. He is to have 12000 men to guard him, 1000 from every tribe to keep him from Gentile harm. It also refers to mobilization when under foreign military threats. It states that the King is to mobilize one tenth of the nation if threatened. If military confrontation is about to happen one third of the force is to be called out while two thirds protect the nation's frontiers and cities. Yadin makes note that the Qumran documents differ in that the Temple Scroll is a description of a defensive war and the Qumran are an offensive eschatological war.

Yadin notes that the major difference of the speech in the Temple Scroll from the Torah is that it is direct words from God and not through Moses. He clarifies his point by saying that the second person addressed in to in the writings is indeed Moses. This is assumed in the reference to Aaron and his brother when dividing the Temple chambers to the tribes. 'And all the right of the left of the Gate of Levi you shall allot to the sons of Aaron your brother, eight and one hundred chambers.'

The following is a summary of the missing portions of column 111-IIX:

Covenant between God and Israel (col. 11).

Building of the Temple, measurements of the sanctuary, the Holy of Holies, the chambers and colonnades (cols. III-VII).

Description of the mercy seat, the cherubim, the veil, the table, the golden lampstand, etc. (cols. VII-XI).

Outline of the sacrifices and the altar (cols. XI-XII).

Daily, weekly and monthly sacrifices and those on festivals (cols. XIII-XXIX).

Buildings in the temple courtyards: the storehouse, the house of the laver, the house for sacred vessels, the slaughterhouse, etc. (cols. XXX-XXXV).

The three courtyards of the Temple, one for the priests, one for Jewish men over twenty years of age, and one for women and children (cols. XXXVI-XLV).

Purity regulations concerning the cities of Israel (cols. XLVIII-LI).

Purity regulations concerning the Temple and the cities of Israel (cols. XLVIII-LI).

Judges and Officers (cols. LI).

Laws relating to idolatry and to animal sacrificial animals (cols. LI-LIII).

Vows and oaths (cols. LIII-LIV).

Laws against apostasy (cols. LIV-LV).

Laws relating to priests and Levites and details statues of the Jewish king (cols. LVILIX).

Miscellaneous laws regarding priestly dues, idols, witnesses, the conduct of war, the rebellious son, crimes punishable by 'hanging' and incestuous relations (cols. LXLXVI).

Tyler F. Williams

In his detailed introduction to the Temple Scroll, Yigael Yadin assumed that in some way the details of the Temple plan included in the completed Temple Scroll by the author/redactor paralleled the Temple structure as it existed in his day--sometime in th e early Hasmonean period. While certainly this must have been the case regarding certain elements common to all the Jewish Temple plans, the Temple plan of this scroll was a utopian, reformist document which sought to change radically the religious status quo of the author's time. It is possible that the Temple plan included in the scroll was composed even before the Maccabean Revolt.

The descriptions of the Jerusalem Temple presented by Josephus and the Temple Scroll share very little beyond basic details which they derived from the biblical material pertaining to the Solomonic Temple. The structure of courtyards, the surrounding chambers, and the facades described are quite different. Several specific conclusions emerge:

There is absolutely no chance that Josephus used the Temple Scroll or the architectural plan included in it as a source.

The ideals of the architect of that plan for a gargantuan, redesigned Temple were never realized, even when Herod's architects rebuilt the Temple.

The Herodian architects made no use at all of the Temple Scroll.

Josephus' plan for the Solomonic Temple resulted from biblical interpretation with only minimal influence from the existing Temple of his day.

The description of the Herodian Temple by Josephus derived from direct information/observation of its architecture. Unlike the description of the Temple Scroll, Josephus' accounts represented reality, not utopia. Those of the Temple Scroll represented utopia, not reality.

Lawrence H. Schiffman

Also read this:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1094-2076...&size=SMALL

If the Temple Scroll was indeed the central Torah of the Essene community at Qumran, we could expect it to have been widely used by this community in all its affairs. But that was not the case.

Only two copies of the Temple Scroll have been found among the approximately 800 manuscripts recovered from the 11 Qumran caves. One of these copies is Yadinâ??s Temple Scroll itself, which comes from Cave 11â??lying about two kilometers north of the central building at Qumranâ??and which was written about the turn of the era. The second copy is a mere fragmentary scroll, also from Cave 11, but written about 50 B.C. Not a single copy of the Temple Scroll was found in the main library recovered from Cave 4, which held fragments of about 580 different manuscripts.4

Another important factor that demonstrates that the Temple Scroll was not part of the authorized law of the Essene community at Qumran is that the religious law (halakhah) reflected in the Temple Scroll often differs from the Qumran communityâ??s known halakhah.

As other scholars have noted, from a literary and philological perspective, there is a broad range of differences between the Temple Scroll and the specifically Essene texts. For example, the Temple Scroll refers to the high priest by his traditional title ha-kohen ha-gadol (the great priest); this title never occurs, however, in other texts from the Qumran caves. There his title is kohen ha-rosh (the high priest) or, perhaps, ha-kohen ha-mashiah (the annointed priest).7

In summation: There is not one mention of the Temple Scrollâ??s text in any of the other specifically Essene writings from Qumran. There is not one quotation from the Temple Scroll in the many Qumran scrolls that otherwise, time and time again, cite all the books of the Pentateuch as their unique law. Further, there are clear differences between the Temple Scroll and the specifically Essene texts in matters of religious law, style, terminology and other linguistic and literary traits. There is also a quite different approach to the Temple buildings in the Temple Scroll, on the one hand, and in the specifically Essene texts on the other. And last but not least, only two copies of the Temple Scrollâ??s text were found in the Qumran caves, both only in Cave 11.The result is unequivocal in my opinion: Whatever the Temple Scroll was, it was not the specific law of the Qumran community, but only some kind of traditional text copied by them once or twice for reasons unknown to us.

Hartmut Stegemann

The cycle of feast mostly paraphrases the Torah, but the dating of feasts is based on the 364-day solar calendar. Moreover, it must be noted that three additional feasts are introduced. This illustrates the tendency of the Temple Scroll towards a more complex cult, which also can be seen in the requiring of cereal offering and drink offering to accompany the sin offering. By generally coming first, the sin offering acquires the function as a preparatory purification rite, hinting at a very strong sense for ritual purity which can be seen in various other laws. Furthermore, laws that concern only priests in the Torah are applied to all Israel.

Alexandra Walter

Only the skins of properly slaughtered animals were to be permitted in the temple city. Blind people, as well as the ill and maimed, were barred as unclean. All sexual relations within the temple city were forbidden. One cemetery was to serve four cities since "you shall not follow the customs of the Gentiles who bury their dead everywhere."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945725-1,00.html

The Pentateuch describes the rules of ritual cleanliness applicable to the Israelite camp in the wilderness (e.g. Deuteronomy 23:10â??14). How are these laws of ritual cleanliness to be applied after the wilderness tabernacle has been replaced by the Jerusalem Temple and the wilderness camp by the city of Jerusalem? In the approach taken by normative Judaism, the rabbis ruled that the Holy City of Jerusalem was to be divided into three different camps: The Temple proper (the Divine camp), the area surrounding the Temple (the Levitical camp), and the rest of the city (the Israelite camp). According to rabbinical interpretation, the harshest bans are applicable only to the Temple proper, the less harsh are applicable to the area surrounding the Temple, and the remainder are applicable to the entire city. To achieve this tripartite division, the rabbis gave different interpretations to different occurrences of the word â??campâ? in the Biblical text. But these interpretations were not suggested by the text itself. The rabbis applied them in order to ameliorate the harshness that would result if all the restrictions applicable to the wilderness camp were applied uniformly to the entire city of Jerusalemâ??indeed to other cities as well. The rabbis who resorted to this tripartite division of restrictions by interpreting â??campâ? in three different ways wereâ??if you wishâ??the â??Reform Jewsâ? of their day in comparison to the Essenes.

The Essenes, as we learn from the Temple Scroll, would have none of this. For them, the City of the Temple (Jerusalem) was equated with the camp where the tabernacle was kept in the wilderness.g All the laws and bans applicable to the wilderness camp were applicable to the entire city of Jerusalem. (In some cases, the camp is equated with any city, and the bans are applicable to all cities.)

We would consider some of the results quite bizarre. For example, in Deuteronomy 23:12â??14, we are told there is to be a place outside the camp in the wilderness for defecation. The Essenes applied this injunction literally to the entire city of Jerusalem. The Temple Scroll forbids the building of toilets in the city:

â??You shall make a place for the hand (a toilet) outside the city to which they shall go out â?¦ 3,000 cubits [outside the city] in order that it will not be visible from the city.â?[/

The Temple Scroll, of course, bans all lepers from Jerusalem, just as lepers were banned from the Israelite camp in the wilderness. As noted above, we are told (in Column 46):

â??And you shall make three places east of the city â?¦ into which shall come the lepers and the people who have a discharge and the men who have had a (nocturnal) emission.â?

quote]Yigael Yadin

However, the Temple Scroll

(45, line 12, GM 167) states that, "No blind person shall enter it throughout his whole life, he shall not defile the city in the centre of which I dwell..."

PHYSICAL PURITY IN THE DSS

by Kimberly Noble (14 May 1995)Religious Studies 225: The Dead Sea Scrolls (R.Kraft)

â??A man may marry a beautiful captive woman, but he must first let her mourn a month for her parents.â?

Temple Scroll (11QT) 63.11â??15

While the calendar and festivals of the ideal Temple are important, the true focus of the Temple Scroll is the plan and operation of the Temple as envisioned by the Qumran community.

The Temple Scroll spends a good many columns on issues of ritual purity in the holy city of Jerusalem, the Temple City. Drawing on rules of purity established primarily in the Book of Deuteronomy for Moses' wandering community and its Tabernacle in the Wilderness, the Temple Scroll writer translates these rules into use at the future Temple City of Jerusalem. The Temple replaced the wandering Tabernacle shrine in the time of Solomon, making Jerusalem the navel of the Jewish religious world. The Temple Scroll writer took the Deuteronomic purity laws and made them laughably (or painfully, for those who had to observe them) strict. An example: Deuteronomy 23 commands the Sinai Wilderness Jewish community to have an "outhouse" outside the camp when they are preparing to battle their enemies. After all, God was in the camp of the Israelites at such times, and so would naturally not want to encounter an unpleasant and unholy "deposit" within the camp. The writer of the Temple Scroll translates this law to the walled city of Jerusalem: fellow Essenes who live in Jerusalem must build an outhouse "so that it will not be visible at any distance from the city, three thousand cubits." (Temple Scroll, Col. 46). Three thousand cubits is roughly 3/4 of a mile!

Unfortunately, things get worse. Normative Judaism at the time declared that you could not walk more than 2,000 cubits from your camp/town on the Sabbath, while the Essenes apparently set the limit at an even stricter 1,000 cubits. The painfully logical conclusion: if you were an Essene, you could not go to the bathroom within the walls of Jerusalem, and you could not go at all on the Sabbath, since the outhouse was well beyond the Sabbath walking limit. To ease the situation slightly, the Essenes apparently had their own gate in Jerusalem through which they could exit at the end of the Sabbath in a mad dash for the outhouse nearly a mile away.

Jehon Grist, Ph.D.

No man who has had a nocturnal emission shall enter the sanctuary at all until three days have elapsed. He shall wash his garments and bathe on the first day and on the third day he shall wash his garments and bathe, and after sunset he shall enter the sanctuary. They shall not enter my sanctuary in their impure uncleanness and render it unclean. No man who has had sexual intercourse with his wife shall enter anywhere into the city of the sanctuary where I cause my name to abide, for three days. No blind man shall enter it in all his days and shall no profane the city where I abide, for I, YHWH, abide amongst the children of Israel for ever and ever.

persweb.wabash.edu/facstaff/royaltyr/QumranWabash/worship.html - 14k -

I could go on and on finding nonparallels between the Temple Scroll, Torah, and Book of Mormon- but what's the point- those things will all be dismissed in lieu of the thing that is a "hit"

Personally, I don't find very many parallels from the Temple Scroll to Lehi in the Book of Mormon. DO YOU?

Besides your premise is based on an assumption that Lehi was a jew. I have seen other interpratations like this(I don't really know enough to agree or not):

Even though the scriptures clearly show that Lehi was descended from the tribe of Joseph (see 1 Ne. 5: 14; Alma 10: 3; and 3 Nephi 5: 20 - 23), a common error is to think of Lehi and Nephi as â??Jews.â? Lehi and his family were not Jews and did not see themselves as Jews. As a descendent of Joseph through Manasseh, Lehi should be called an â??Israelite,â? meaning a descendant of the tribes that formed the Kingdom of Israel. Throughout The Book of Mormon, Lehi and Nephi use the term Jew exclusively to signify a native subject of the Kingdom of Judah. Understanding the distinction that was important to them will help you understand Lehi and his family and The Book of Mormon better

When Lehi led his family out of Jerusalem, one of the first things he did was build an altar and offer sacrifice (1 Nephi 2: 7). Modern Jews investigating The Book of Mormon often find this action highly unlikely for a righteous Jew, since priesthood duties in Judah at that time were generally limited to the Levites. But itâ??s not an unlikely action for an Israelite to perform. For over 300 years, Lehiâ??s people had recognized the right of the other tribes to exercise priesthood authority. Like King Jeroboam, Lehi knew that his family was cut off from worship at the temple in Jerusalem. So, like the founder of his own nation and like Adam of old, when Lehi was driven out into the wilderness he built an altar and offered sacrifice

http://myweb.cableone.net/fredjer/writing/lehi-article.pdf.

Or there's this theory of Lehi's nonjewishness:

Lehi seems to have considered himself a non-Jew (1 Nephi 1:20). His fathersâ?? tongue was reformed Egyptian (1 Nephi 1:2) which included some Arabic (JSH 1:64), and during the many years they lived in Arabia, they probably mastered the local dialects of early Arabic. Lehiâ??s party even had Arabic names: sons of â??Ismhaelâ?, â??Samâ?, â??Josephâ? and Jacob are all traditional Arab names. Modern maps of Saudi Arabia list towns called â??Lihinâ? meaning people of Lihi, â??Nifiâ? and â??Almaâ?. Even the name â??Moumenâ? pronounced â??Mormonâ? by the Arabs is the Arabic name for true believer, which in turn makes perfect contextual sense in the Book of Mormon (those who â??believeâ? is used four time in the five verses that introduce the place-name â??Mormonâ? (Mosiah 18:3-7)).

George D. Potter

But I personally don't really CARE one way or the other what Lehi was supposed to have been. The thing is that Joseph Smith had access to the idea of traveling three days into the wilderness to make a sacrifice. Using the one line in the Temple Scroll to somehow vindicate Joseph seems a bit off to me. But what do I know?

Sailgirl7

Edit: All that and I couldn't seem to get the quote function to work right. Sorry about the messy way it looks.

[why me]

That question is answered because it is clear that there are biblical references to making a sacrifice in the wilderness after a three day journey. Joseph no doubt would have been familiar with the story. about

Yes, it is quite amazing just what Joseph would have been familiar with as he was writing the book of mormon on the farm in Palmyra. If I remember correctly, Joseph was often seen with pen in hand, busily doing research in the old testament and in the new testament. I have heard that he was often in the library with his ink bottle and feathered pen researching the bible as literature for his writing project: the book of mormon. Accordingly, after spending many years writing the book, he developed the idea of publishing his book as a new source of scripture. I have also heard that Sidney got word of the book and brought Joseph the Spaulding manuscript and together they continued the writing as a joint project.

I find it all quite amazing just what this farm boy knew...but I also find it all very sad. He could have made something of himself...maybe a professor of theology at a new england college. Oh well...to loose one's life for a crazy book is such a waste of life....

What to do? But then again, maybe he didn't write the book...nor did Sidney...

[sailgirl7]

Yes, it is quite amazing just what Joseph would have been familiar with as he was writing the book of mormon on the farm in Palmyra. If I remember correctly, Joseph was often seen with pen in hand, busily doing research in the old testament and in the new testament. I have heard that he was often in the library with his ink bottle and feathered pen researching the bible as literature for his writing project: the book of mormon. Accordingly, after spending many years writing the book, he developed the idea of publishing his book as a new source of scripture. I have also heard that Sidney got word of the book and brought Joseph the Spaulding manuscript and together they continued the writing as a joint project.

I find it all quite amazing just what this farm boy knew...but I also find it all very sad. He could have made something of himself...maybe a professor of theology at a new england college. Oh well...to loose one's life for a crazy book is such a waste of life....

What to do? But then again, maybe he didn't write the book...nor did Sidney...

Your saying he was not familiar with the story in Exodus? He read the book of James before he was 14 and that was it? Now people are saying that Joseph Smith didn't even read the BIBLE! Even though he said he read the Bible since 1817- but of course we can't take his word for it....

â?¦ thus from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the situation of the world of mankind the contentions and divi[si]ons the wicke[d]ness and abominations and the darkness which pervaded the of the minds of mankind my mind become exceedingly distressed for I become convicted of my sins and by searching the scriptures I found that <mankind> did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ â?¦

http://www.irr.org/mit/First-Vision-Scans/...32-jshisp1.html

[consiglieri]

Wow, sailgirl. That was a tour de force, even if your quote function isn't working.

I agree with you that both the Exodus quotes and the 1 Nephi quote have in common a three days' journey into the wilderness to offer sacrifice.

I think you understand that in Exodus, however, the Israelites were not traveling three days' journey away from the temple in Jerusalem in order to fulfill a part of the unwritten law they possessed.

But it is possible that that is what Lehi was doing.

Do you think it of any additional interest that, according to George Potter whom you quoted, the river that empties into the Red Sea is located approximately three days' journey from Jerusalem? And that it is at that river that the Book of Mormon says Lehi offered the sacrifice? And that up until recently, the existence of any river that fits the description given in the Book of Mormon has been decried?

Perhaps there is something here in the combination of coincidences that has greater evidentiary value than all of them taken individually.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[sailgirl7]

Wow, sailgirl. That was a tour de force, even if your quote function isn't working.

I agree with you that both the Exodus quotes and the 1 Nephi quote have in common a three days' journey into the wilderness to offer sacrifice.

I think you understand that in Exodus, however, the Israelites were not traveling three days' journey away from the temple in Jerusalem in order to fulfill a part of the unwritten law they possessed.

But it is possible that that is what Lehi was doing.

Do you think it of any additional interest that, according to George Potter whom you quoted, the river that empties into the Red Sea is located approximately three days' journey from Jerusalem? And that it is at that river that the Book of Mormon says Lehi offered the sacrifice? And that up until recently, the existence of any river that fits the description given in the Book of Mormon has been decried?

Perhaps there is something here in the combination of coincidences that has greater evidentiary value than all of them taken individually.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I guess for me, a couple of "hits" in a sea of "misses" doesn't amount to much. There are too many questions for me like- if Lehi was a Jew what kind of Jew was he? Since there were seperate beliefs and practices- how can we say what law applied to Lehi? Do you have a reference that says what type of Jew he was? Also the Temple scroll isn't necassirily the law that was practised at Qumran- since some of the religious laws differ from their known laws. Also, Stegemann views the Temple scroll as an early expansion of the Torah and that it would have been a central document of law during the mid-2nd Temple period from the end of the 5th century, through the fourth or third century B.C. Lehi left Jerusalum in 588/587 B.C. (the first Temple period 1006-586 B.C.) which was almost 100 years BEFORE the time when this would have been the law. Also "the Temple Scroll broke the months into 30-day periods With an extra day at the end of every three months giving each year 364 days contrary to the Judaism." and " Secondly, the Temple Scroll had two new festivals; the Festival of New Wine celebrated 50 days after the Passover or Rising of Omer. As well as the Festival of New Oil celebrated after another 50 days. The issue of the Sabbath was also under debate. The Pharisees acceptance was that a day of rest was to fall on the first day of the Passover. The Essene community held it as the Saturday after the end of the Festival of Unleavened Bread." http://biblical-studies.ca/dss/introductions/11QT.html So did Lehi practise these specific festivals? Where in the Book of Mormon does it mention those observances? Also, the Temple in the Temple Scroll is DIFFERENT than the First or Second temple. The Book of Mormon says Lehi built a temple like unto the Temple of Solomon (First temple.) The Temple described in the Temple scroll is BIGGER than the Temple of Solomon. So why would Lehi build a temple after the the manner of the First Temple rather than the one described in Temple Scroll if he was indeed under that Law? So many questions, so little time. Meanwhile, like I said there are too many "misses" for me to overrule the couple of "hits". Pense-tu?

Sailgirl7

Edit: Upon further research it seems the consensus is that the Temple Scroll was written sometime around 150 B.C. Hundreds of years AFTER Lehi left Jerusalum.

[Joseph Antley]

Edit: Upon further research it seems the consensus is that the Temple Scroll was written sometime around 150 B.C. Hundreds of years AFTER Lehi left Jerusalum.

So? If UD is right that Talmud includes it as well, Jews will tell you it existed as an oral teaching (and probably written in some form) during the life of Lehi at the end of the 7th century B.C.

[e=mc2]

Rhinomelon:

The Dead Sea Scrolls, for the most part, predate Christianity, and have nothing specifically to do with Christianity (no matter what Dan Brown likes to say). There are no Christian or pseudo-Christian texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls, they are from a strictly Jewish milieu. Perhaps you were thinking of the Nag Hammadi texts?

Kerry:

Oh, I'd be willing to debate you on this.......... I think you may be wrong, quite, quite wrong.......

[structurecop]

Rhinomelon:

The Dead Sea Scrolls, for the most part, predate Christianity, and have nothing specifically to do with Christianity (no matter what Dan Brown likes to say). There are no Christian or pseudo-Christian texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls, they are from a strictly Jewish milieu. Perhaps you were thinking of the Nag Hammadi texts?

Kerry:

Oh, I'd be willing to debate you on this.......... I think you may be wrong, quite, quite wrong.......

Interesting that the Essene community has been repeatedly referred to as the "church of anticipation."

[Hammer]

If it is a major point with you, I suggest you write up an article on the subject and submit it for

publication in a reputable scholarly journal.

That is, if you are prepared to receive critical responses from rabbis telling you that the Talmud and

Mishna divulged such information in print, long before the BoM ever saw press.

Or, failing that, somebody is sure to trot out a relevant quote from "Clarke's Commentary," or the

Edinburgh "Royal Arch Craftsman," or some such pre-1830 English language source.

Then you will have to return to the fall-back line of defense, in asking how JS could have ever read

the Talmud ----- and why Solomon Spalding and/or Sidney Rigdon's possible readings of such source

material could not have influenced the BoM text.

Methinks it best to avoid submisison of your thesis to the Journal of Biblical Literature; but ol'

Doc Peterson would perhaps insert it into the back pages of a FARMS Review for you.

UD

I wonder if you or anyone knowledgable enough could make up a comprehensive list of all the books JS and friends were supposed to have read, obsorbed, and regurgitate in order to write the BoM in a few months time.

How old was JS when he alegedly wrote or was helped to write this book? How much time and transference of paper work was given in order to get this work accomplished.

How did the men involved see an angel? Do angels come to all frauds? I am getting a little confused about how all of these things could have taken place in so few years when most can't get anything at all done in a life time.

It also confuses me that God would validate such work to millions of people.

[sailgirl7]

So? If UD is right that Talmud includes it as well, Jews will tell you it existed as an oral teaching (and probably written in some form) during the life of Lehi at the end of the 7th century B.C.

Jews will say what existed?

Call for References!

Edit: Did you miss the part about:

Also, Stegemann views the Temple scroll as an early expansion of the Torah and that it would have been a central document of law during the mid-2nd Temple period from the end of the 5th century, through the fourth or third century B.C. Lehi left Jerusalum in 588/587 B.C. (the first Temple period 1006-586 B.C.) which was almost 100 years BEFORE the time when this would have been the law.

[Hammer]

I would like to thank sailgirl for bringing the references from Exodus into the discussion.

Those references talk about Moses leading the children of Israel three-days' journey into the desert to offer sacrifice. (Which we all know was a dodge to just try to get a head-start on Pharoah's army once he got wise.)

The Book of Mormon has Lehi, an observant Jew during the waning days of the First Temple, travel three days' journey into the wilderness, build an altar and offer sacrifice.

I have never heard Moses criticized for offering sacrifice at a location other than a temple, mainly because there was no temple in existence at the time; and the tabernacle was not even thought up yet.

On the other hand, I have heard the Book of Mormon criticized for having an observant Jew think he could properly offer sacrifice any place other than the temple in Jerusalem.

In a throw-away line, the Book of Mormon off-handedly remarks that Lehi first traveled three-days' journey into the wilderness; and then and only then did he offer sacrifice. Now a Dead Sea Scroll supports this kind of exception to the rule, and specifically limits it to locations that are at least a three-days' journey from Jerusalem.

I find this a remarkable hit in the Book of Mormon.

My question is: Am I still the only one who feels this way?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

You hit it right on. Don't let flack mush your claim.

[sailgirl7]

You hit it right on. Don't let flack mush your claim.

Flack? Call for references.

[e=mc2]

Um, one reason the BofM did NOT use the law as found in the Temple Scroll is more than likely due to dating......... BofM Lehi travels approx around 590-585 B.C., Dead Sea Temple Scroll um approx 100 B.C...... you know, a little chronological thingy going on here.................

[sailgirl7]

Um, one reason the BofM did NOT use the law as found in the Temple Scroll is more than likely due to dating......... BofM Lehi travels approx around 590-585 B.C., Dead Sea Temple Scroll um approx 100 B.C...... you know, a little chronological thingy going on here.................

Thank you- I was beginning to think I was the only one who saw that.

[why me]

Your saying he was not familiar with the story in Exodus? He read the book of James before he was 14 and that was it? Now people are saying that Joseph Smith didn't even read the BIBLE! Even though he said he read the Bible since 1817- but of course we can't take his word for it....

http://www.irr.org/mit/First-Vision-Scans/...32-jshisp1.html

But you see sailgirl, this doesn't prove much. Look at the account again. To search the scriptures for answers does not imply that Joseph saw the exodus quotation nor for that matter many of other bible verses. It does mean that he searched the scriptures for answers to questions and I can bet my hiking boots that he wasn't searching for exodus and the quotation involved.

I can only hope that someday, perhaps 150 years from now, someone will find my journal and see my entry about searching the scriptures for answers of faith and conclude that I saw all verses in the bible and reflected on them all. Unfortunately, that would be far from true, but hey, if someone wants to think so, why not?

But like I said, Joseph did not fulfill his true mission in life...he should have been a professor of theology somewhere in New England and lived a gentile life with wife Emma...close to his best friend Sidney. Both true scholars of the bible at the time the book of mormon was translated.

[why me]

Unfortunately, no notebook outline of the book of mormon has been found written in Joseph's hand or in sidney's hand. As an academic I would love to see his notes...to think of this young man busily outlining the bible in preparation for the book of mormon would be a thing to behold. And to see his notes filled with imagination for the 'novel of faith' would be exciting and very inspiring to hold. To catch a glimpse of the exodus quotation and to see just how Joseph planned it for his novel, would be fantastic. But...there is no notebook or outline to behold such a genius at work...sad for humankind....

It would be a grand american story of a young man and his pen, attempting to better himself through independent study and hard work...allowing his father's farm to go bankrupt, in order to succeed in life as a religious leader and author. Such a story is made for the Oprah show.

[sailgirl7]

But you see sailgirl, this doesn't prove much. Look at the account again. To search the scriptures for answers does not imply that Joseph saw the exodus quotation nor for that matter many of other bible verses. It does mean that he searched the scriptures for answers to questions and I can bet my hiking boots that he wasn't searching for exodus and the quotation involved.

I can only hope that someday, perhaps 150 years from now, someone will find my journal and see my entry about searching the scriptures for answers of faith and conclude that I saw all verses in the bible and reflected on them all. Unfortunately, that would be far from true, but hey, if someone wants to think so, why not?

But like I said, Joseph did not fulfill his true mission in life...he should have been a professor of theology somewhere in New England and lived a gentile life with wife Emma...close to his best friend Sidney. Both true scholars of the bible at the time the book of mormon was translated.

I'm not saying it PROVES anything other than there is evidence that he had ACCESS to the information. You would only bet your hiking boots? I thought it was worth more than that. So are you saying that you KNOW based on EVIDENCE that Joseph NEVER SAW or HEARD of EXODUS until 1830 when he began to translate the BIBLE? Please provide that evidence that would lead you to conclude that. Or if it's just a testimony than- okay- that's the end of the story.

The way I see it- you guys win. You win because you say you know and have the truth. I cannot compete with that. I can only search for truth and keep on looking when I think I have found it. It's hard to have meaningful dialoge when most people only offer sarcasm and forget to add substance.

Sailgirl7