Book Of Mormon Proven Right

[cdowis]

It is pretty well documented that there are parallels between 1 Nephi and Exodus. Lehi, in particular, parallels Moses. -CK

I assume that you have seen documentation showing parallels between Moses and BY, the Exodus and the Saints going west.

And that proves..... BY is a fictional character.

[sailgirl7]

Sailgirl spiced it all up with her premise of possible plagarism.

Just for the record. My intent was not to establish plagarism charges. As I read through the thread the question was posed orginally to Uncle Dale that:

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?

As I read that I remembered that I read something like that in the Bible a long time ago- it sounded familiar. I am not a bible scholar- but it struck a cord of familiarity so I did a quick search- and I was right- there was something in the Bible- that talked about a three day journey into the wilderness. So I posted the references. That was it.

Then- the question became- well- yeah that story is in the Bible- but- Joseph didn't know that because he didn't study the bible- and well- the stories are different.

As I did some searching about the Temple scroll- I realized that there were many things that were different between it and the Book of Mormon. My problem is that to take ONE LINE out of context and use that as proof of something is just as wrong as the critics who take ONE LINE out of context to critize the church. Don't you see that? We can't have it both ways. Critics and defenders are both wrong to do that.

If you want to establish a real connection from the Book of Mormon to the Temple Scroll- please take more than one or two lines. Research and do some real indepth analysis. I would like to see that. Anyone can do a quick search on anything and find parallels in them. Parallels don't establish a true connection. I think the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent could apply here. If P (the story of Lehi's sacrifice) is like Q (a line from the Temple Scroll) and Q (The Temple scroll is true) therefore P (the story of Lehi is true).

Or an association fallacy-"if there exists any x in the set S so that a property φ is true for x, then for all x in S the property φ must be true."

Also-

Consigieri-

I'm not sure that three references to the same event, namely Moses leaving an Egyptian city to go out into the wilderness three days' journey to offer sacrifice, completely poops my party; inasmuch as there was no Israelite temple they were leaving behind.

In other words, Moses could not be expected to restrict his sacrifices to a temple that had not yet been constructed.

How does it change things to know that the story of Moses and his Tabernacle in the Wilderness is the source of the rules of purity in the Temple Scroll? "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."-Jehon Grist, Ph.D.

If the source of the line in the Temple scroll is indeed from the story of Moses itself-what happens to your parallel? It's not so mysterious.

Even still there is plenty of SCHOLARSHIP that you may investigate and learn for yourself. Why just take the one line, and call it good- there's plenty more to learn. If at the end of all your learning you find what you wanted to be significant still is- then GREAT! Until then- it is an incomplete argument at best.

Sailgirl7

[why me]

If you had read my post, you would have found that not only did I read the first post by the OP, but all five of my points addressed it directly.

Here they are again:

Someone has addressed these issues with you on this thread. I read the first entry and it said nothing about temple practice. I took my cue from that. The more finer details are out my league. I am sure that there will be points of contention. For after all we do not have much information in the book of mormon about it all. There was just the comparison between the DSS and the book of mormon and it was a sentence comparison.

[why me]

Just for the record. My intent was not to establish plagarism charges. As I read through the thread the question was posed orginally to Uncle Dale that:

As I read that I remembered that I read something like that in the Bible a long time ago- it sounded familiar. I am not a bible scholar- but it struck a cord of familiarity so I did a quick search- and I was right- there was something in the Bible- that talked about a three day journey into the wilderness. So I posted the references. That was it.

Then- the question became- well- yeah that story is in the Bible- but- Joseph didn't know that because he didn't study the bible- and well- the stories are different.

Sailgirl7

I think that it was implied by some to be a plagarism comparison. Or was it just me? I have stated before that it is always difficult for an apologist to win. First, there is uncle dale, pulling out books from all over the world to demonstate that Joseph or Sidney coulda been reading such books. And if I would gather all these books together, I would need quite many bookshelves to accomodate them. Second, when someone pulls out a comparison there seems to be an understanding that JS did copy from it.

It gets quite ridiculous at times.

[Chris Smith]

Disclaimer: No proof has been established that JS or Sidney took the idea from exodus, if they wrote the book.

Proof, no. But I established a very strong tie between 1 Ne 2 and Exodus 3. There is every reason to believe that the three-days-and-then-a-sacrifice is drawn from there.

I assume that you have seen documentation showing parallels between Moses and BY, the Exodus and the Saints going west.

And that proves..... BY is a fictional character.

I think maybe you haven't been following the discussion. The point was not to prove that Lehi was a fictional character. The point was to falsify the claim that Lehi was acting out of regard for a rule found in the Temple Scroll. Rather Lehi was acting (or perhaps is presented as having acted) according to Moses' pattern in Ex 3.

It's not like the entire truth of the Gospel hangs on this point. I don't understand why people are uwilling to concede it.

-CK

[sailgirl7]

Why Me

I think that it was implied by some to be a plagarism comparison. Or was it just me?

Sorry for the confusion. There's a difference between providing information and making assertions. Didn't I also say:

Otherwise the answer is that he was "inspired" which makes the point of concidence irrelavent.

I'm not saying it PROVES anything other than there is evidence that he had ACCESS to the information

Or he was just inspired of God- and none of this really matters anyway.

As you can see, I did attempt to show I wasn't just making an assertion of plagerism. I can allow for any possibility.

Please stop making false accusations against me.

Why Me

I have stated before that it is always difficult for an apologist to win.

It's about who is winning and who is losing now? What about who's agrument has merit. What about who's dialogue is in depth and has substance. What about who's agrument is more valid in the greater context? I think there's more to it than who's winning or losing.

Why Me

First, there is uncle dale, pulling out books from all over the world to demonstate that Joseph or Sidney coulda been reading such books.

Call for references.

Why Me

And if I would gather all these books together, I would need quite many bookshelves to accomodate them.

I think that would be great fun!

Why Me

Second, when someone pulls out a comparison there seems to be an understanding that JS did copy from it.

What do you want? When someone makes a comparison we just all say "Yea verily" and that's the end of the story? Why don't you do that when someone makes a comparison that contradicts your beliefs or understanding?

Why Me

It gets quite ridiculous at times.

Yea verily.

Sailgirl7

[why me]

Call for references.

Sailgirl7

Check out his website...plus his many posts where he mentions this book and that book that coulda been had.

[sailgirl7]

Check out his website...plus his many posts where he mentions this book and that book that coulda been had.

I know- it was my turn to be sarcastic. I was trying to be funny- it never works when I try it.

Sailgirl7

[why me]

Why Me

Sorry for the confusion. There's a difference between providing information and making assertions. Didn't I also say:

As you can see, I did attempt to show I wasn't just making an assertion of plagerism. I can allow for any possibility.

Please stop making false accusations against me.

Sailgirl7

Has I said, that some can see it that way. In your own post, you said as much. Do you remember when you wrote *He would have been familiar* with such works because of his searching the scriptures. Hence, the implication.

I know- it was my turn to be sarcastic. I was trying to be funny- it never works when I try it.

Sailgirl7

You need to use the smilies. <<<<these would help.

[sailgirl7]

Has I said, that some can see it that way. In your own post, you said as much. Do you remember when you wrote *He would have been familiar* with such works because of his searching the scriptures. Hence, the implication.

You need to use the smilies. <<<<these would help.

[sailgirl7]

Has I said, that some can see it that way. In your own post, you said as much. Do you remember when you wrote *He would have been familiar* with such works because of his searching the scriptures. Hence, the implication.

You need to use the smilies. <<<<these would help.

Edit: You are taking ONE LINE of mine out of context. Hence your implication. How many times have I said now that I was not trying to establish an accusation of plagerism? But you have that one line.

Also, you never answered my question. I asked you to provide evidence that Joseph Smith DID NOT study the old testament before 1830. I provided a quote of his that said he studied the scriptures before he translated the Book Of Mormon. You dismissed it. It's your turn to provide the evidence for your claims.

[why me]

Edit: You are taking ONE LINE of mine out of context. Hence your implication. How many times have I said now that I was not trying to establish an accusation of plagerism? But you have that one line.

Also, you never answered my question. I asked you to provide evidence that Joseph Smith DID NOT study the old testament before 1830. I provided a quote of his that said he studied the scriptures before he translated the Book Of Mormon. You dismissed it. It's your turn to provide the evidence for your claims.

I know that I was taking your one line and running with it. Why? Because I have seen this before with other posters. But I was nice to you because I don't see you as a critic just someone who perhaps used the wrong use of words. But the critics are amazingly skilled in using the hypothetical as documented fact in proving a point.

I have no idea that he did not read and study the new testament or the old testament. But I do believe that he didn't use the old testament to use the temple journey part of the book of mormon. I just don't see JS as the author of the book of mormon. Even Uncle Dale has a different source than JS. But Dan Vogel has JS writing it. But I just can't get my head around that one.

My contention is: Critics should stick to documented facts when attempting to disprove the church and not hypotheticals for self-validation.

[sailgirl7]

My contention is: Critics should stick to documented facts when attempting to disprove the church and not hypotheticals for self-validation.

I agree and I think apologists should stick to documented facts when attempting to prove the church and not hypotheticals for self-validation.

[why me]

I agree and I think apologists should stick to documented facts when attempting to prove the church and not hypotheticals for self-validation.

True...do you feel validated now? I am still seeking after it.... <<<behind my mask.

[sailgirl7]

True...do you feel validated now? I am still seeking after it.... <<<behind my mask.

What do I need to feel validated about?

[Fortigurn]

Someone has addressed these issues with you on this thread.

And I've answered them.

I read the first entry and it said nothing about temple practice.

I didn't say anything about 'temple practice' either. Did you read my post?

I took my cue from that. The more finer details are out my league. I am sure that there will be points of contention. For after all we do not have much information in the book of mormon about it all. There was just the comparison between the DSS and the book of mormon and it was a sentence comparison.

So it was a comparison based on an inadequate data.

[Fortigurn]

We have abundant evidence for the sacrificial orthopraxy of the 1st Temple era. You will find it in the Old Testament, as well as in the apocryphal literature.

This one statement by you demonstrates that you are out of your league.

Please disregard my above attempt to discuss the matter with you in a reasonable manner.

Could you explain why you made this statement please?

[consiglieri]

This one statement by you demonstrates that you are out of your league.

Please disregard my above attempt to discuss the matter with you in a reasonable manner.

Could you explain why you made this statement please?

Certainly. I answered your five questions in an honest and reasonable manner. You took the opportunity to unleash on me in an unreasonable manner.

On the off-chance that you wanted me to explain why I said you are "out of your league," anybody who thinks that First Temple Judaism is described in the Old Testament is not up to date on current scholarship. It is Second Temple Judaism that is described in the Old Testament which was rewritten to make it appear to have been First Temple Judaism.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Chris Smith]

If nobody's going to address the 1 Ne 2/Ex 3 connection, may I consider the point conceded?

[consiglieri]

If nobody's going to address the 1 Ne 2/Ex 3 connection, may I consider the point conceded?

If nobody is going to address the Brigham Young/Ex 3 connection, should we consider conceded the point that Brigham Young did not exist?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Fortigurn]

Certainly. I answered your five questions in an honest and reasonable manner. You took the opportunity to unleash on me in an unreasonable manner.

I'm sorry, but what was unreasonable about my reply, and what does 'unleash' mean in this context?

On the off-chance that you wanted me to explain why I said you are "out of your league," anybody who thinks that First Temple Judaism is described in the Old Testament is not up to date on current scholarship. It is Second Temple Judaism that is described in the Old Testament which was rewritten to make it appear to have been First Temple Judaism.

Thanks, I'm familiar with the Documentary Hypothesis. The statement you made is not universally held, and if you want a debate on the Documentary Hypothesis we can start another thread.

But by making this claim you're now creating even more problems for yourself. If you want to represent the Documentary Hypothesis as factual, then you have to realise:

* The Documentary Hypothesis insists there was no temple extant in the 1st Temple era, which means that your Lehi certainly isn't obeying a rule to sacrifice 3 days away from the temple, because it didn't exist

* The Documentary Hypothesis insists that there was no sacrificial orthopraxy in the 1st Temple era, so your Lehi certainly isn't obeying 1st Temple era sacrifiical orthopraxy

* By discounting the only proximate source of data for 1st Temple era sacrificial orthopraxy, you have no archaeological or textual data whatever on which to base the claim that Lehi was following 1st Temple era sacrificial orthopraxy

You still have to explain why one line from a 2nd Temple era document proves that Lehi followed 1st Temple era sacrificial orthopraxy.

[consiglieri]

* The Documentary Hypothesis insists there was no temple extant in the 1st Temple era, which means that your Lehi certainly isn't obeying a rule to sacrifice 3 days away from the temple, because it didn't exist

Excuse me? Of course there was a temple in First Temple Judaism. Hence the name. The issue isn't whether there was a temple in Lehi's day; the issue is what they were doing in the temple, and how that changed in Second Temple Judaism.

You are probably right this would be best for another thread. In the meantime, Margaret Barker has gone on record that the Book of Mormon accurately reproduces aspects of First Temple Judaism that were done away with in Second Temple Judaism and are only being rediscovered in the last several decades. Pretty good for a work of fiction, wouldn't you say?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[USU78]

If nobody's going to address the 1 Ne 2/Ex 3 connection, may I consider the point conceded?

CK, thanks for reminding us of the structure of 1 Nephi and the recurring theme in many of the BoM books. Whoever wrote 1 Nephi was highly conscious of the parallel between the Moses-led Exodus and the Lehi-led one.

I agree that, thematically and structurally, the 3 day journeys by Lehi and Moses are inextricably connected and are meant to be by the author.

The events of thanksgiving following the end of the first leg of each Exodus, however, are not quite the same. With Lehi, we have the finding of water and the thank-offering on the altar constructed just outside the Jerusalem Temple's "spiritual hegemony." With Moses, we have the escape through water and the celebration after Pharaoh's overthrow, best expressed by Miriam in her Siegesgesang.

There is no need, however, to analyse with any priestly rigor the [probably] spontaneous celebration by Saved Israel in Trans-Red-Sea Sinai, since there is no priestly function occurring as far as we know. The reason the analysis of the Lehi event is interesting is because of the priestly nature of the act of constructing an altar and offering thank-offerings. If the thank-offerings were to be acceptable to G-d, they must be made with ritual purity and in proper order. Being outside the 3-day radius of the Jerusalem Temple is, according to the author(s) of the Temple Scroll, the sine qua non to the acceptability of the sacrifice.

Now, we can debate on whether the Temple Scroll is evidence of an older tradition, and that's a legitimate issue for analysis.

What we do not and cannot know is whether the same rule applied to a sacrifice by the Israelite captives in Egypt. Was there some rule of purity that the Israelite priests could not offer an effective sacrifice within a three-day journey of the Egyptian Temple precincts? If the parallel is to be taken very far, we must accept that there was such a rule. Where, however, is the evidence of the rule if not in the Qumran document -- and 1 Nephi? [Quaere: were any of the usual suspects sufficiently sophisticated in their Bible to infer such a rule from Moses' request of Pharaoh?]

I myself find parallels between the need of Israel to perform sacrifices outside the "tainted air" of the 3-day journey radius and the late 2nd Temple gripes against the Herodian usurpation of the Temple [but thanks anyway for building a much better building, H], leading to the proposed "Faithful in the Wilderness" of Qumran, refusing meat and keeping faith against the day when the true worship should be restored to the Jerusalem Temple.

[consiglieri]

Well, all I can say is, "Thank G-d for USU78."

Thanks for the informed analysis.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Fortigurn]

Excuse me? Of course there was a temple in First Temple Judaism. Hence the name.

Well now, you're going to have to decide if you want to support the Documentary Hypothesis or not. If you want to support the Documentary Hypothesis, then you have to deal with the problems I've identified. If you don't want to support the Documentary Hypothesis, then my statement still stands - we have plenty of primary sources describing 1st Temple era sacrificial orthopraxy.

The issue isn't whether there was a temple in Lehi's day; the issue is what they were doing in the temple, and how that changed in Second Temple Judaism.

If there was no temple in Lehi's day, then you cannot appeal to his alleged adherence to sacrificial orthopraxy outside the Temple precincts.

You are probably right this would be best for another thread. In the meantime, Margaret Barker has gone on record that the Book of Mormon accurately reproduces aspects of First Temple Judaism that were done away with in Second Temple Judaism and are only being rediscovered in the last several decades.

Who's Margaret Barker, and why should I care?