5 Practical Reasons To Reject The Deuteronomic Reforms Conspiracy

jmordecai · November 21, 2008

There is a vast divide when it comes to the concept of God between the major Abrahamic religions of the world and the Mormon faith.

On one side of the spectrum: Judaism, Catholicism, Islamism, Protestantism, and even early LDS writings such as the BoM and 1st edition D&C Lectures on Faith all seem to share a common concept of a singular spirit God.

On the other side of the spectrum is the Mormon faith, which seems to stand alone with a concept of God as a personage of flesh and bones.

Since the LDS church claims to be the â??restored churchâ??, then that implies the doctrines it now teaches must have been taught and lost in times past. This would require that incompatible doctrines now held by parent religions must have had their doctrines altered at some point in history.

In order to explain how all the other parent, sister and offshoot religions had their doctrines altered over time, LDS have embraced a host of conspiracies and explanations, from Greek Mythology to an overbearing and influential Catholic church and the Nicene Creed to the alleged Deuteronomic Reforms.

The Deuteronomic Reforms conspiracy is used to explain Judaismâ??s doctrinal transformations.

In the simplest of terms: the allegation is that the text of Deuteronomy (and possibly other early OT texts) that we have today were altered, which erased the early doctrines that would prove to be consistent with modern Mormonism.

The â??Deuteronomic Reformsâ? conspiracy rests upon what exactly Hilkiah found. Scholars thus speculate on this and the implications thereof. The reality is that nobody knows for certain what was found. Therefore any conclusions based on DR are nothing more than theories, speculation and assumptionsâ??for which scholars are all over the map.

Because of this, we can make DRâ??s implications to be anything we want, and LDS (overreach) in using DR to try and find an opening to force their modern doctrines into the ancient texts.

Here are some obvious and practical reasons why it is reasonable to conclude that the DR conspiracy is much ado about nothing:

#1) The 24 plates of Limhi predates DR. Where are the evidences unique to the Book of Ether that demonstrate pre-reform thought and doctrine?

#2) For a church that believes in an active office of the Prophet, where are the doctrinal corrections from any BoM or OT prophets who arose after the reforms? If LDS believe Smith corrected the apostate Christian church from the time of Christ, which Prophet(s) corrected the alleged reforms?

#3) Did Smith let stand or did he correct the reforms in the OT JST?

#4) Jesus Christ and His 12 Apostles quote from all but five books of the OT with the exception of Ezra, Neh., Est., Ecc., & SoS. If Christ and the Apostles trusted the text of the OT in their preaching, then certainly we too can have faith in the textâ??s trustworthiness.

#5) Where do Christ, the 12 disciples, Moroni or Mormon correct the reformâ??s influence that would have made it into the BoM?

Make that 6 reasons...

#6) Isn't it interesting how these competing non-LDS religions, who supposedly underwent independent transformations of doctrine, all wound up with a strikingly similar definition of a singular spirit God?

Kevin Christensen · November 21, 2008

#1) The 24 plates of Limhi predates DR. Where are the evidences unique to the Book of Ether that demonstrate pre-reform thought and doctrine?

Start with Nibley's The World of the Jaredites and There Were Jaredites. Also consider discussions of the Jaredites Gardner's recent Second Witness, and papers like "San Lorenzo as the Jaredite City of Lib."

For most logicians, a question is not equivalent to a reason.

#2) For a church that believes in an active office of the Prophet, where are the doctrinal corrections from any BoM or OT prophets who arose after the reforms? If LDS believe Smith corrected the apostate Christian church from the time of Christ, which Prophet(s) corrected the alleged reforms?

For the response of the 3 Isaiah to the reforms, see Margaret Barker's The Older Testament, the corresponding chapter. Also, consider her chapter on the Era of the Restoration. Also consider the differences between the histories in Kings and Chronicles. Notice the silence in Kings on the Temple furnishings where Chronicles has details.

Also consider places where Jeremiah and Ezekiel expressly contradict passages in Deuteronomy. And, of course, it was only after I read Barker's work, and then re-read the Book of Mormon in the light of her view of the reform, that I could see that even chapter 1 of 1 Nephi immediately brings up the kinds of things that were surpressed by the reformers. Jacob 4:14 directly refers to a blindness in Jerusalem. The debate with Sherem in Jacob 7 involves exactly the issues arising during the reform. The same blindness that Jacob 4:14 refers is criticized by Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 1 Enoch, and Proverbs.

#3) Did Smith let stand or did he correct the reforms in the OT JST?

Kevin Barney considers the OT JST mostly a midrash, rather than a textual restoration. Nevertheless, I think a case could be made that JST restores many things that were supressed by the reformers. Margaret Barker once wrote Barney that the key to everything is in what is missing from Genesis. Most scholars agree that the current Hebrew Genesis is post exilic. And the different themes in Moses correspond to older notions.

See in particular, the Discourse on Abbaton linked here.

http://www.thinlyveiled.com/pearl.htm

Once again, a question is not a reason.

#4) Jesus Christ and His 12 Apostles quote from all but five books of the OT with the exception of Ezra, Neh., Est., Ecc., & SoS. If Christ and the Apostles trusted the text of the OT in their preaching, then certainly we too can have faith in the textâ??s trustworthiness.

See http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/barker.htm

She shows that we do not have the Old Testament that Jesus used.

This is not a practical reason, but an unquestioned assertion.

#5) Where do Christ, the 12 disciples, Moroni or Mormon correct the reformâ??s influence that would have made it into the BoM?

For starters, see my "Paradigms Regained" at the FARMS site.

A blind rhetorical question is not equivalent to a reason.

Make that 6 reasons...
#6) Isn't it interesting how these competing non-LDS religions, who supposedly underwent independent transformations of doctrine, all wound up with a strikingly similar definition of a singular spirit God?

Isn't it interesting how these competing non-LDS religions (Judaism, Catholicism, Islamism, Protestantism) did not go through completely independent transformations of doctrine, but all took a common historical path of development through Hellenistic philosophy and Neoplatonic mysticism. (On this see Nibley, The World and the Prophets.)

My count is different.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

LifeOnaPlate · November 21, 2008

On one side of the spectrum: Judaism, Catholicism, Islamism, Protestantism, and even early LDS writings such as the BoM and 1st edition D&C Lectures on Faith all seem to share a common concept of a singular spirit God.

Already you're off on the wrong foot. Especially in regards to the Book of Mormon's "concept of a singular spirit God." Such simply is not the case. A proof-text approach can be done, where little selections from the BoM can be made to appear to support your theory, but a close reading of the text (or hey, even just one quick read-through) demonstrates the view is not so simple. (See, for example, the book of Third Nephi).

smac97 · November 21, 2008

There is a vast divide when it comes to the concept of God between the major Abrahamic religions of the world and the Mormon faith.
On one side of the spectrum: Judaism, Catholicism, Islamism, Protestantism, and even early LDS writings such as the BoM and 1st edition D&C Lectures on Faith all seem to share a common concept of a singular spirit God.
On the other side of the spectrum is the Mormon faith, which seems to stand alone with a concept of God as a personage of flesh and bones.

This can just as easily be construed as an argument in favor of Mormonism. Religion-by-man-made-consensus will always be inferior to religion-by-revelation.

Moreover, you are wrong to say that Mormonism alone harbors belief in God's corporeality. There are historical antecedents for the concept. See here:

AUGUSTINE AND THE CORPOREALITY OF GOD
Carl W. Griffin and David L. Paulsen
Brigham Young University
[Harvard Theological Review (2002), 95 : 97-118 Cambridge University Press Copyright

maklelan · November 21, 2008

In the simplest of terms: the allegation is that the text of Deuteronomy (and possibly other early OT texts) that we have today were altered, which erased the early doctrines that would prove to be consistent with modern Mormonism.

Actually the accusations is that Deuteronomy was entirely composed by Josiah's minions.

#1) The 24 plates of Limhi predates DR. Where are the evidences unique to the Book of Ether that demonstrate pre-reform thought and doctrine?

That God is visible. That Jesus is Jehovah. The use of the Urim and Thummim. Beyond that you have to keep in mind the book is a narrative, not a doctrinal treatise.

#2) For a church that believes in an active office of the Prophet, where are the doctrinal corrections from any BoM or OT prophets who arose after the reforms?

Christ was the next dispensational leader after Josiah, and he made quite a few reforms. After that it's Joseph Smith, who did the same.

If LDS believe Smith corrected the apostate Christian church from the time of Christ, which Prophet(s) corrected the alleged reforms?

Christ's new covenant superseded all that.

#3) Did Smith let stand or did he correct the reforms in the OT JST?

We have no clear indication what exactly the JST was supposed to be. I'm inclined to view them as more of a targumic perspective of the scriptures.

#4) Jesus Christ and His 12 Apostles quote from all but five books of the OT with the exception of Ezra, Neh., Est., Ecc., & SoS. If Christ and the Apostles trusted the text of the OT in their preaching, then certainly we too can have faith in the textâ??s trustworthiness.

No, they allude to them. They don't necessarily quote them. This also begs the question, did Christ and the apostles make those allusions, or did the authors who were composing the different texts of the new Testament do it? The same standards apply to the New Testament as to the Old.

#5) Where do Christ, the 12 disciples, Moroni or Mormon correct the reformâ??s influence that would have made it into the BoM?

It's left out of the Book of Mormon, for the most part. Clearly the idea that only the temple in Jerusalem was authorized is omitted from the Book of Mormon. As is the idea that only Levitical priests may perform sacrifices, since Lehi very clearly performed them.

Make that 6 reasons...
#6) Isn't it interesting how these competing non-LDS religions, who supposedly underwent independent transformations of doctrine, all wound up with a strikingly similar definition of a singular spirit God?

The differences between them are actually quite striking as well. You have to do more than squint at them from a distance until they blur together. I don't find your statement particularly interesting, though.

rameumptom · November 21, 2008

#4) Jesus Christ and His 12 Apostles quote from all but five books of the OT with the exception of Ezra, Neh., Est., Ecc., & SoS. If Christ and the Apostles trusted the text of the OT in their preaching, then certainly we too can have faith in the textâ??s trustworthiness.

The New Testament also quotes 39 times from the Book(s) of Enoch (see Jude, for example). Does this mean we should insist on adding 1 Enoch to the Old Testament as well? Oh, and in the Enoch writings, Enoch becomes divine, sitting on God's throne and becoming Metatron! Many early Jewish and Christian texts discuss the idea of many gods, including men becoming gods. It isn't the Mormons fault that St Jerome rejected dozens of books that disagreed with his beliefs. Jews, and Christians believe in "one God" because they both ended up following a Hellenistic view based on Aristotelian views of a single God, not on anything taught by ancient prophets. This is what the Council of Nice was all about: whether God was 3 beings or one.

We do not argue that the OT has many truths in it. I can easily find truths within all the books, INCLUDING Ezra, Neh, Est, Ecc, and SoS. That does not mean everything in them is correct.

Friedman convincingly shows that there were various competing authors for the OT, including Deuteronomy, in his "Who Wrote the Bible?" This does not mean there is no truth in them. It means that many truths were taken out, removed, lost, or changed. And that's what we find time and again in the scriptures. Why are there two different versions of the Creation (Gen 1 and 2)? Why does the Flood story have two stories imbedded into one? And why does Deuteronomy include writings that scholars agree are from King Josiah's reign?

The BoM strongly teaches the pre-Deuteronomist temple, as Margaret Barker explained in her talk at the 2005 Joseph Smith Conference at the Library of Congress. Lehi's vision and dream (1 Ne 1, 1 Ne 8-11) are extremely similar to the Apocalypse of Isaiah text.

jmordecai · November 23, 2008

For most logicians, a question is not equivalent to a reason.

Sure, if we are playing a game of chess. When in the framework of theories and hypothesis like the DR rhetorical questions are appropriate.

QUOTE
#1) The 24 plates of Limhi predates DR. Where are the evidences unique to the Book of Ether that demonstrate pre-reform thought and doctrine?
Start with Nibley's The World of the Jaredites and There Were Jaredites. Also consider discussions of the Jaredites Gardner's recent Second Witness, and papers like "San Lorenzo as the Jaredite City of Lib."

How about we start with a few bullet points on specifics passages you can reference in the Book of Ether and go from there?

Providing a list of essays such as Nibleyâ??s in which not all the content is on topic, and then I have to guess what finer points you ascertain from the substance within is inefficient. Rather, share the finer points and provide specific reference.

QUOTE
#2) For a church that believes in an active office of the Prophet, where are the doctrinal corrections from any BoM or OT prophets who arose after the reforms? If LDS believe Smith corrected the apostate Christian church from the time of Christ, which Prophet(s) corrected the alleged reforms?
For the response of the 3 Isaiah to the reforms, see Margaret Barker's The Older Testament, the corresponding chapter. Also, consider her chapter on the Era of the Restoration.
Also consider the differences between the histories in Kings and Chronicles. Notice the silence in Kings on the Temple furnishings where Chronicles has details.

Different authorsâ?¦ from different time periodsâ?¦ writing different but overlapping accountsâ?¦ for different purposesâ?¦

One person sees a complimentary text which reinforces the overall accountâ?¦ while another person sees a conspiracy within the missing elements between the two texts.

I donâ??t consider Kings silent on Temple furnishings (1 King 7:13-51). Besides, if the reforms were as impacting as you allege, Ezra would not have been able to add what was lost to the reforms.

Also consider places where Jeremiah and Ezekiel expressly contradict passages in Deuteronomy.

Can you be more specific? What you find contradictory may not be what I do, so I have to play a guessing game, when you can just tell me.

And, of course, it was only after I read Barker's work, and then re-read the Book of Mormon in the light of her view of the reform, that I could see that even chapter 1 of 1 Nephi immediately brings up the kinds of things that were surpressed by the reformers.

What specifically do you see in 1 Nephi 1 that was suppressed by the reformers?

Jacob 4:14 directly refers to a blindness in Jerusalem. The debate with Sherem in Jacob 7 involves exactly the issues arising during the reform. The same blindness that Jacob 4:14 refers is criticized by Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 1 Enoch, and Proverbs.

So that there should be no Christ (Jacob 7) is an â??exact issueâ?? central to the time of the reforms?

QUOTE
#3) Did Smith let stand or did he correct the reforms in the OT JST?
Kevin Barney considers the OT JST mostly a midrash, rather than a textual restoration.

I donâ??t know who Kevin Barney is. But I do know that God provided Smith specific instructions for the translation: D&C 37: 1; 45: 60-61; 76: 15-18; 90: 13; 91; 94: 10; 104: 58; 124: 89

LDS have to minimize the JST (published by the church in 1867) because it interferes with their claims of an altered Biblical text.

Nevertheless, I think a case could be made that JST restores many things that were supressed by the reformers.

Such as?

QUOTE
#4) Jesus Christ and His 12 Apostles quote from all but five books of the OT with the exception of Ezra, Neh., Est., Ecc., & SoS. If Christ and the Apostles trusted the text of the OT in their preaching, then certainly we too can have faith in the textâ??s trustworthiness.
See http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/barker.htm
She shows that we do not have the Old Testament that Jesus used.

Soâ?¦ only our OT today has the reforms in it, but not the OT Christ used? I donâ??t understand the point you are making here in regards to the DR.

Besides, your assertion above is an overreach. The variation of texts between the Jewish and Christian OT cannons do not support a wholesale dismissal of the OT we have today. The same sources (ie. Origen, J. Africanus, etc.) we use to demonstrate such variances also provide us with some specificity of the variances. What OT variances can you cite that have any profound theological implications?

LDS would protest if I applied your standard to Mormon scripture: the D&C of today is not the D&C in 1840, which demonstrate evolving LDS doctrine.

QUOTE
#5) Where do Christ, the 12 disciples, Moroni or Mormon correct the reformâ??s influence that would have made it into the BoM?
For starters, see my "Paradigms Regained" at the FARMS site.

How about a few of the finer points to start with?

Isn't it interesting how these competing non-LDS religions (Judaism, Catholicism, Islamism, Protestantism) did not go through completely independent transformations of doctrine, but all took a common historical path of development through Hellenistic philosophy and Neoplatonic mysticism. (On this see Nibley, The World and the Prophets.)

The Muslims suffered from Hellenistic/Neoplatonic influence?

When the DR reforms allegedly converted Judaism to monotheism, was that due to Hellenistic/Neoplatonic influence as well?

Already you're off on the wrong foot. Especially in regards to the Book of Mormon's "concept of a singular spirit God." Such simply is not the case. A proof-text approach can be done, where little selections from the BoM can be made to appear to support your theory, but a close reading of the text (or hey, even just one quick read-through) demonstrates the view is not so simple.

Give me some references in the BoM that point to God the Father having a body of flesh and bones? Letâ??s start there and see how far we go with it.

This can just as easily be construed as an argument in favor of Mormonism. Religion-by-man-made-consensus will always be inferior to religion-by-revelation.

Which revelations are you referring to, the Prophet Muhammadâ??s?

Moreover, you are wrong to say that Mormonism alone harbors belief in God's corporeality. There are historical antecedents for the concept. See here:
AUGUSTINE AND THE CORPOREALITY OF GODâ?¦

What texts of Augustine do you purport to refer to a corporeal God?

The restoration of lost truths, and the revelation of new truths not previously disclosed to man, are the hallmarks of Mormonism. These are strengths, not liabilities.

Thatâ??s assuming there were lost truths and what LDS prophets relay is actually revelation from God. Do sustaining the ban on black priesthood and polygamy give confidence to Divine revelation?

First, not all truths were lost. Many, but not all. We've never claimed that all our doctrines stem from modern-day revelation (hence our belief in, and heavy reliance on, the Bible).
Second, we believe that God has revealed things to this dispensation that have not previously been revealed to man. So the Restored Gospel necessarily incorporates more than those doctrines that had previously been revealed and then lost.

Thatâ??s reasonable.

Greek mythology???

That was my reaction as well. Some LDS presented that as a possible scenario. Iâ??ll see if I can find it.

jmordecai · November 23, 2008

In any event, I am curious as to what you think of the scholarship of Margaret Barker.

I havenâ??t read all her material. But what I have is interesting. That she jumps all over the map, or rather to different eras, like pointing to a 300 A.D. source to support a 500 B.C. theory is frustrating. To be honest, her â??researchâ? reminds me of Dan Brownâ??s work (i.e. Da Vinci Code, Angels & Demons): a formula that takes elements from different time periods, looks for holes or gaps to exploit and link them all into a big conspiracy theory. Of course, fans of Barker will probably find my assessment offensive.

I question the accuracy of your simplistic characterization.
Again, what are your thoughts on the scholarship of Margaret Barker? Let's forego arguing about a superficial caricature ("in the simplest of terms...") and address the substantive literature produced by Barker on this topic.

We can address the substantive literature if you can demonstrate what exactly Hilkiah found.

Not all speculations and assumptions are created equal.
Moreover, I note that you are signaling your intention to not engage the relevant scholarship.

Iâ??ve perused various theories on this matter. The spectrum is wide as to scholarly opinion on the matter. And I emphasis â??opinionâ?? because thatâ??s all they can offer. The 6 points I laid out in this letter I think are reasonable to conclude whatever was reformed wasnâ??t impacting, or adversely altered theology.

That said, I wonder if the theophany in Ether 3 constitutes "pre-reform thought and doctrine." I am also curious as to how you propose to gauge it to "pre-reform thought and doctrine" (which reform, according to you, did not really happen).

Good question. What are the theological implications LDS allege of the DR? From my recollection (I may miss or inject something I shouldnâ??t): multiple gods, a mother goddess, temple ordinances (i.e. baptism for the dead), a physical god (father)â?¦ basically the core doctrines that separate Mormonism from contemporary Christianity.

Thus I would expect to see these doctrines in pre-reform BoM, and likewise corrected post-reform by the prophet(s) and Christ. But we donâ??t so that lends weight to my position that DR is overstated.

What do you purport are the implications of DR?

That's an interesting question, but it is just that: a question. Again, I'm curious as to how a question somehow constitutes a "reason why it is reasonable to conclude that the DR conspiracy is much ado about nothing."

Itâ??s a rhetorical question. Let me rephrase it:

We donâ??t find the corrupted theology that LDS claim exists in our OT from the Deut Reforms corrected by Smith in the JST. If we do, where is it?

I question whether Jews and Muslims would agree that their monotheism is "strikingly similar" to the trinitarian monotheism of Catholicism and Protestantism.
I question whether the sects that have spent centuries arguing about various and profound doctrinal disagreements pertaining to the nature of the Trinity can nevertheless be described as all having "a strikingly similar definition of a singular spirit God."

We would expect variance. However in terms of God (the Father) all hold a view of a singular omnipotent supreme God, who is a personage of spirit.

Actually the accusations is that Deuteronomy was entirely composed by Josiah's minions.

One accusation among many.

The New Testament also quotes 39 times from the Book(s) of Enoch (see Jude, for example). Does this mean we should insist on adding 1 Enoch to the Old Testament as well?

I pulled an address from a phone book for a report. Is my report suspect because I donâ??t include the entire phone book? Paul quotes the pagansâ?¦ etc.

This is fundamentally different than the OT, which Christ himself validated and considered scripture.

The Hebrew cannon is traditionally divided into three segments: the Law (Moses), the Prophets and the Psalms (the writings).

Christ validated the authority of the Hebrew cannon:

"And he said unto them ... that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,"

Luke 24:44-45

In the Hebrew cannon of Christâ??s time, 2 Chronicles is the last book, unlike Malachi in our English Bibles. Christ accuses the Jews of their guilt for rejecting the prophets throughout all scripture:

Luke 11:51

"From the blood of Abel (Genesis) unto the blood of Zacharias (2 Chronicles) which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation."

Josephus (AD 95), 2 Esdras (AD 100) and the teaching-house at Jamnia (AD 70-100) all indicate that the Hebrew cannon of Christâ??s time contained the same 39 books we have in our OT today.

Furthermore, if you have faith in Christ, then we canâ??t disregard what Christ said about the scripture (the only scripture of His time was the OT):

Matthew 5:18

"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

John 10:35

"â?¦ the scripture cannot be broken"

Christ validates Davidâ??s authority:

Mark 12:36

"For David himself said by the Holy Ghost..."[i/]

He validates Mosesâ?? authority:

John 5:46

"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me."

He validates the Law and the Prophets:

Luke 24:27

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."

The Apostle Paul validates the Hebrew OT:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

2 Timothy 3:16

This is just scratching the surface.

Oh, and in the Enoch writings, Enoch becomes divine, sitting on God's throne and becoming Metatron! Many early Jewish and Christian texts discuss the idea of many gods, including men becoming gods. It isn't the Mormons fault that St Jerome rejected dozens of books that disagreed with his beliefs.

What OT era books do you think should be canonized that werenâ??t? And why?

Jews, and Christians believe in "one God" because they both ended up following a Hellenistic view based on Aristotelian views of a single God, not on anything taught by ancient prophets.

Thereâ??s no compelling evidence the Jews changed their beliefs to monotheism.

Friedman convincingly shows that there were various competing authors for the OT, including Deuteronomy, in his "Who Wrote the Bible?" This does not mean there is no truth in them. It means that many truths were taken out, removed, lost, or changed.

Suppose there were multiple authors (which I disagree), why does that automatically translate to lost, removed and changed texts? Besides Christ upheld the tradition of Moses being the author.

And that's what we find time and again in the scriptures. Why are there two different versions of the Creation (Gen 1 and 2)?

You mean like the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham?

And why does Deuteronomy include writings that scholars agree are from King Josiah's reign?

Some scholars, not all. And even the ones that do think something sinister are all over the map.

Iâ??m going to add reason #7 why itâ??s reasonable to conclude the Deut Reforms werenâ??t impacting or fundamentally changed theology:

To believe in a DR conspiracy also requires an unsubstantiated belief that the reformers were able to seize and altar all the texts, without resistance or splinter groups. Itâ??s unlikely that the reformers would altar so many core doctrines, yet we having no compelling evidences of any rebellion. Sweeping theological shifts would have resulted in splinter groups and splinter texts.

maklelan · November 23, 2008

One accusation among many.

And your post has nothing to do with any of them. I couldn't help but notice you only responded to one of my responses, and your response amounts to nothing more than a meaningless evasion of the subject. Do you care to respond to the rest of what I've said, or are you only interested in engaging stuff you feel prepared to defend?

jmordecai · November 24, 2008

Because my position is that the reforms didn't result in anything that fundamentally changed Jewish doctrine.

I didn't respond to questions I thought were redundant. I'll re-look at your arguments. Give me a day or so.

LifeOnaPlate · November 24, 2008

jmordecai, do you accept sola scriptura?

maklelan · November 24, 2008

Because my position is that the reforms didn't result in anything that fundamentally changed Jewish doctrine.

And as I attempted to explain, you don't seem to have a comprehensive grasp of exactly what those reforms are believed to have been.

I didn't respond to questions I thought were redundant. I'll re-look at your arguments. Give me a day or so.

Take your time.

jmordecai · November 24, 2008

Maklelan,

Okay, I went through each of your points below. You will notice many of my answers are duplications of what I already relayed in my prior post above, as I considered the argument redundant. But if I missed something or am looking at it the wrong way, let me know.

Actually the accusations is that Deuteronomy was entirely composed by Josiah's minions.
And your post has nothing to do with any of them…
And as I attempted to explain, you don't seem to have a comprehensive grasp of exactly what those reforms are believed to have been.

Let me attempt to restate my position. My position is that there was no DR conspiracy that resulted in sweeping theological changes. You want me to debate the intricacies of a particular theory when I don’t accept the underlying premise.

You are correct on this point, I do not have a ‘comprehensive’ grasp of what those reforms are, because I, nor anyone can demonstrate this with any certainty. Scholars get paid to ponder such things. Some propose hypothesis sincerely, while others like to put their names on the map with wild speculation.

I’ve perused various views on the matter, from Barker to EV sources and even atheist/Bible critics material. We can reach certainty on two things: (1) the conclusions are all over the map and (2) its all speculation. I don’t need to be an expert with all the moon-landing conspiracists to apply a common sense approach, for which I concluded there was no moon landing hoax.

My 7 arguments are practical reasons the DR wasn’t impacting.

I’ll repeat. If you can demonstrate what Hilkiah found, then we can have a discussion on the merits of LDS and/or Barkers view. BTW, do you agree with all of her conclusions?

Unless otherwise convinced, I’ll stick with Christ's judgment of validating Jewish tradition of a Moses authorship. (Luke 24:44-45, John 5:46).

QUOTE(jmordecai @ Nov 21 2008, 03:27 AM) *
#1) The 24 plates of Limhi predates DR. Where are the evidences unique to the Book of Ether that demonstrate pre-reform thought and doctrine?
That God is visible. That Jesus is Jehovah. The use of the Urim and Thummim. Beyond that you have to keep in mind the book is a narrative, not a doctrinal treatise.

Visible in what way? An epiphany like a pillar of cloud? Or a personage of flesh and bones? Give me some ref. in the BoM.

Elaborate on what you mean by Jesus is Jehovah and what exactly was suppressed by the reforms.

The U&M – you’re kidding?

QUOTE(jmordecai @ Nov 21 2008, 03:27 AM) *
#2) For a church that believes in an active office of the Prophet, where are the doctrinal corrections from any BoM or OT prophets who arose after the reforms?
Christ was the next dispensational leader after Josiah, and he made quite a few reforms. After that it's Joseph Smith, who did the same.

Christ made "quite a few reforms"... Did Christ undo the supposedly radical reforms or did He just make a few minor tweaks here and there? It’s interesting in my other thread (“Why I think the BoM is not an authentic ancient text”), LDS argue what Christ introduced wasn’t necessarily transformational or new to the Jews. (i.e. Baptism, a personal Holy Ghost “comforter”, a Christan assembly, God as Father, Christ as Son of God, etc. etc). So I’m getting mixed messages.

What specifically did Christ reestablish that DR took away?

QUOTE(jmordecai @ Nov 21 2008, 03:27 AM) *
If LDS believe Smith corrected the apostate Christian church from the time of Christ, which Prophet(s) corrected the alleged reforms?
Christ's new covenant superseded all that.

You seem to have overlooked a big gap in time here…

So the prophets that lived post-reforms lived with and accepted the reforms?

QUOTE(jmordecai @ Nov 21 2008, 03:27 AM) *
#3) Did Smith let stand or did he correct the reforms in the OT JST?
We have no clear indication what exactly the JST was supposed to be. I'm inclined to view them as more of a targumic perspective of the scriptures.

God apparently had no ambiguity concerning the translation:

(D&C 37: 1; 45: 60-61; 76: 15-18; 90: 13; 91; 94: 10; 104: 58; 124: 89).

QUOTE(jmordecai @ Nov 21 2008, 03:27 AM) *
#4) Jesus Christ and His 12 Apostles quote from all but five books of the OT with the exception of Ezra, Neh., Est., Ecc., & SoS. If Christ and the Apostles trusted the text of the OT in their preaching, then certainly we too can have faith in the text’s trustworthiness.
No, they allude to them. They don't necessarily quote them. This also begs the question, did Christ and the apostles make those allusions, or did the authors who were composing the different texts of the new Testament do it? The same standards apply to the New Testament as to the Old.

Allude?

Not quite… rather reinforced the importance of those scriptures. Here's a copy/paste of my earlier reply:

Christ validated the authority of the Hebrew cannon:

"And he said unto them ... that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,"

Luke 24:44-45

In the Hebrew cannon of Christ’s time, 2 Chronicles is the last book, unlike Malachi in our English Bibles. Christ accuses the Jews of their guilt for rejecting the prophets throughout all scripture:

Luke 11:51

"From the blood of Abel (Genesis) unto the blood of Zacharias (2 Chronicles) which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation."

Josephus (AD 95), 2 Esdras (AD 100) and the teaching-house at Jamnia (AD 70-100) all indicate that the Hebrew cannon of Christ’s time contained the same 39 books we have in our OT today.

Furthermore, if you have faith in Christ, then we can’t disregard what Christ said about the scripture (the only scripture of His time was the OT):

Matthew 5:18

"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

John 10:35

"… the scripture cannot be broken"

Christ validates David’s authority:

Mark 12:36

"For David himself said by the Holy Ghost..."[i/]

He validates Moses’ authority:

John 5:46

"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me."

He validates the Law and the Prophets:

Luke 24:27

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."

The Apostle Paul validates the Hebrew OT:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

2 Timothy 3:16

QUOTE(jmordecai @ Nov 21 2008, 03:27 AM) *
#5) Where do Christ, the 12 disciples, Moroni or Mormon correct the reform’s influence that would have made it into the BoM?
It's left out of the Book of Mormon, for the most part. Clearly the idea that only the temple in Jerusalem was authorized is omitted from the Book of Mormon. As is the idea that only Levitical priests may perform sacrifices, since Lehi very clearly performed them.

I keep re-reading your statement and I’m not confident I understand your position to comment. Let me seek clarification: When you say “it’s” left out of the Book of Mormon. What do you mean by “it’s”? The reforms or Christ's corrections?

QUOTE(jmordecai @ Nov 21 2008, 03:27 AM) *
Make that 6 reasons...
#6) Isn't it interesting how these competing non-LDS religions, who supposedly underwent independent transformations of doctrine, all wound up with a strikingly similar definition of a singular spirit God?
The differences between them are actually quite striking as well. You have to do more than squint at them from a distance until they blur together. I don't find your statement particularly interesting, though.

I agree, the differences are significant. The similarities in terms of the nature of God are strikingly similar though.

-----

More follow up questions:

1. What was the motivation behind the reforms to radically change the prevailing doctrines of Judaism at the time?

2. Where did the ideas/concepts of the new doctrines come from?

jmordecai · November 24, 2008

jmordecai, do you accept sola scriptura?

I think I lean more towards prima scriptura

Lamanite · November 24, 2008

In the "prima scriptura" entry in wikipedia the information regarding the Church is incorrect, for those who get down with editing wiki entries.

One could say that Mormon's could identify with the doctrine of "prima scriptura", as opposed to sola scriptura.

...doctrine resides in the four "standard works" of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith....Approaching Mormon Doctrine

This places the scriptures in a position of great authority. Statement of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve can always be measured against the doctrines found within the standard works.

But then again, I could probably distance myself from this doctrine in order to bolster my belief in modern day Prophets and Apostles.

We really are "peculiar".

Big UP

Lamanite

maklelan · November 25, 2008

Maklelan,Okay, I went through each of your points below. You will notice many of my answers are duplications of what I already relayed in my prior post above, as I considered the argument redundant. But if I missed something or am looking at it the wrong way, let me know.

I appreciate your time.

Let me attempt to restate my position. My position is that there was no DR conspiracy that resulted in sweeping theological changes. You want me to debate the intricacies of a particular theory when I donâ??t accept the underlying premise.

I'll give you one example of a clear theological change, and you tell me if you still think your premise is valid. To start with, though, I'd like to clarify the Deuteronomistic redactor's role in the Hebrew Bible. The theory basically argues that the Torah as we have it today was redacted as a whole around the time of Josiah's reign or shortly thereafter. Noth argued for an exilic redactor, but that date has been moved back a century or two and multiple levls of redaction have instead been posited. The idea is that the book of Deuteronomy was composed from scratch (or close to it) at this time period to lend credence to the idea that Jerusalem is the singular home of the temple of God. Several parts of it were clearly written well after Moses' time. Deuteronomy 34:1 states that the Lord showed Moses the land of Gilead, all the way to Dan. Dan wasn't founded as a city until Judges 18:29. Whoever wrote Deuteronomy 34:1 lived well after Moses' death, and was incorrect in stating that God showed Moses Gilead, all the way to Dan. Dan didn't exist at that time. The syntax and vernacular of Deuteronomy is also almost entirely unique to the Hebrew Bible. Only one other book shares many of the unique words and phrases: Kings. I can't imagine how someone could argue that Deuteronomy was written during Moses life (or shortly thereafter) and never redacted. If you'd like to argue against my evidence, be my guest.Now, on to theological manipulation. Exodus 23:17 mentions a ritual to be performed by all the men in Israel three times a year. The KJV says they are to appear before the Lord three times in the year. The Hebrew is odd, though. This phrase "appear before the Lord" is used several times in the scriptures, and each time it alludes to Exodus 23:17, but in many of the examples, the morphology of the word "appear" in Hebrew is clearly active, and not passive. "Appear" is the passive translation of the word "to see." In Hebrew, the phrase was originally "see the face of God," but the Masoretic scribes didn't like the idea that God's face could be seen, so they changed the voweling to make it read passively, even though it's clearly active. This manipulation extends clear into the end of Exodus, where another scribe interpolated the statement that none can see the face of God and live. Throughout pre-exilic texts, however, the belief that man could and did see the face of God was prevalent. I consider that to be a rather significant theological manipulation. In addition there's the assertion that Jerusalem is to be the exclusive home to the temple of Yahweh, but the Old Testament mentions over a half-dozen working temples during the time period between Solomon's reign and the exile. Deuteronomy clearly post-dates that.

You are correct on this point, I do not have a â??comprehensiveâ?? grasp of what those reforms are, because I, nor anyone can demonstrate this with any certainty. Scholars get paid to ponder such things. Some propose hypothesis sincerely, while others like to put their names on the map with wild speculation.

I think you far overstate your position.

Iâ??ve perused various views on the matter, from Barker to EV sources and even atheist/Bible critics material.

I'll take it you simply misunderstand the meaning of the word "peruse," but I'll add that if that's all you've done then you're clearly way out of your league. I suggest you give John H. Hayes' An Introduction to Old Testament Study a shot. That's a much better introduction than skimming dogmatic treatises.

We can reach certainty on two things: (1) the conclusions are all over the map and (2) its all speculation. I donâ??t need to be an expert with all the moon-landing conspiracists to apply a common sense approach, for which I concluded there was no moon landing hoax.

But it's not speculation. Deuteronomy clearly mentions that Moses saw the city of Dan, which did not exist until at least a century after Moses' death. How do you explain that away?

My 7 arguments are practical reasons the DR wasnâ??t impacting.Iâ??ll repeat. If you can demonstrate what Hilkiah found, then we can have a discussion on the merits of LDS and/or Barkers view. BTW, do you agree with all of her conclusions?

I agree with very few of them. I can demonstrate what Hilkiah found because one of his reforms was to tear down the other temples and obliterate the other priesthood. The only place in all of scripture where the requirement is found that Jerusalem be the only place for the valid temple is Deuteronomy. If he found something other than Deuteronomy, it's been since lost, because we absolutely do not have it.

Unless otherwise convinced, Iâ??ll stick with Christ's judgment of validating Jewish tradition of a Moses authorship. (Luke 24:44-45, John 5:46).

But that presupposes there was no redaction of those NT texts. You can't argue that one text can't have been redacted because another text that also could have been redacted says so. John was clearly redacted as well. Tell me, if John wrote it, why does it say in John 21:24, "This is the disciple which testifies of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true." If John wrote it, who are "we"?

Visible in what way? An epiphany like a pillar of cloud? Or a personage of flesh and bones? Give me some ref. in the BoM.

Either way. God's face could clearly be seen in the book of Ether, but Exodus seems to say that no one could see his face and live, despite the fact that numerous prophets are said to have seen his face.

Elaborate on what you mean by Jesus is Jehovah and what exactly was suppressed by the reforms.

The idea that God has a son in heaven was common in pre-exilic times, but was later shunned, and in Rabbinic times was condemned as a heresy. The logos found in John was actually a popular Jewish idea, but was suppressed by Jewish authorities because they were afraid it sounded like polytheism.

The U&M â?? youâ??re kidding?

No, I'm not. Is that really all you have to say?

Christ made "quite a few reforms"... Did Christ undo the supposedly radical reforms or did He just make a few minor tweaks here and there? Itâ??s interesting in my other thread (â??Why I think the BoM is not an authentic ancient textâ?), LDS argue what Christ introduced wasnâ??t necessarily transformational or new to the Jews. (i.e. Baptism, a personal Holy Ghost â??comforterâ?, a Christan assembly, God as Father, Christ as Son of God, etc. etc). So Iâ??m getting mixed messages.

No, you're not getting mixed messages. You're conflating two clearly distinct ideologies. I'm referring to the reforms of the Sermon on the Mount, and others like it.

What specifically did Christ reestablish that DR took away?

That he was with the father and responsible for the creation of the earth.

You seem to have overlooked a big gap in time hereâ?¦So the prophets that lived post-reforms lived with and accepted the reforms?

I haven't overlooked anything. How many prophets can you name from the Bible that lived after the exile?

God apparently had no ambiguity concerning the translation:(D&C 37: 1; 45: 60-61; 76: 15-18; 90: 13; 91; 94: 10; 104: 58; 124: 89).

Can you please show me where God gives a precise definition of the word translate? According to the 1828 Webster's, it could mean any of the following:

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another. 2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death. 3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Sam. 3. 4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another; as, to translate a disease. 5. To change. 6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. 7. To explain.

To which definition does God refer? And please provide sources.

Allude?Not quiteâ?¦ rather reinforced the importance of those scriptures.

I'll ask you to explain exactly how they do not allude, and exactly how reinforcement precludes allusion. If you can't I'm left with the conclusion that you don't actually know what the word "allude" means.

maklelan · November 25, 2008

Here's a copy/paste of my earlier reply:
Christ validated the authority of the Hebrew cannon:
"And he said unto them ... that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,"
Luke 24:44-45

The only factual assertion made by Christ is that certain things were written in those books. He makes no qualitative judgment of them, nor does he specifically refer to any single book of scripture. This is absolutely atrocious argumentation. I suggest you step it up a notch.

In the Hebrew cannon of Christâ??s time, 2 Chronicles is the last book, unlike Malachi in our English Bibles.

Actually there was no canon, and Daniel and Ezra/Nehemiah were at the end of the Hebrew Bible in the oldest manuscripts we have, which are still almost 1000 years older than Christ. We have no indication what the order of books was like in the Hebrew Bible during Christ's time. The Septuagint was rejected by Judaism rather early, but the oldest versions of that we have are still from centuries after Christ's lifetime. The idea of a canon wasn't even developed in the Jewish worldview until after Christ's death, and even then there were some questionable books. Irrespective, this has nothing to do with my statement.

Christ accuses the Jews of their guilt for rejecting the prophets throughout all scripture:
Luke 11:51
"From the blood of Abel (Genesis) unto the blood of Zacharias (2 Chronicles) which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation."

What does this have to do with my statement?

Josephus (AD 95), 2 Esdras (AD 100) and the teaching-house at Jamnia (AD 70-100) all indicate that the Hebrew cannon of Christâ??s time contained the same 39 books we have in our OT today.

Which verses in Josephus and 2 Esdras, and what textual evidence do you have that there ever was a council at Jamnia that decided any canon?

Furthermore, if you have faith in Christ, then we canâ??t disregard what Christ said about the scripture (the only scripture of His time was the OT):
Matthew 5:18
"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
John 10:35
"â?¦ the scripture cannot be broken"
Christ validates Davidâ??s authority:
Mark 12:36
"For David himself said by the Holy Ghost..."[i/]
He validates Mosesâ?? authority:
John 5:46
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me."
He validates the Law and the Prophets:
Luke 24:27
"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."
The Apostle Paul validates the Hebrew OT:
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
2 Timothy 3:16

Not a one of these mentions any single book from the Bible, and not a one of them has anything whatsoever to do with my statement. I'll ask you to confine your responses to arguments that are relevant to my arguments.

I keep re-reading your statement and Iâ??m not confident I understand your position to comment. Let me seek clarification: When you say â??itâ??sâ? left out of the Book of Mormon. What do you mean by â??itâ??sâ?? The reforms or Christ's corrections?

Clearly I'm talking about the reforms.

I agree, the differences are significant. The similarities in terms of the nature of God are strikingly similar though.

Only from a rather uninformed perspective.

More follow up questions:
1. What was the motivation behind the reforms to radically change the prevailing doctrines of Judaism at the time?

Centralization of Israelites rule in Jerusalem, exaltation of Josiah as a fulfillment of prophecy, and vilification of the enemies of Josiah.

2. Where did the ideas/concepts of the new doctrines come from?

They arose from political necessity and from the influence of Persian, and later Hellenistic, religion.

jmordecai · November 27, 2008

maklelan

I'll give you one example of a clear theological change, and you tell me if you still think your premise is valid. To start with, though, I'd like to clarify the Deuteronomistic redactor's role in the Hebrew Bible. The theory basically argues that the Torah as we have it today was redacted as a whole around the time of Josiah's reign or shortly thereafter. Noth argued for an exilic redactor, but that date has been moved back a century or two and multiple levls of redaction have instead been posited. The idea is that the book of Deuteronomy was composed from scratch (or close to it) at this time period to lend credence to the idea that Jerusalem is the singular home of the temple of God.

So you concede my point that this is a theory.

Several parts of it were clearly written well after Moses' time. Deuteronomy 34:1 states that the Lord showed Moses the land of Gilead, all the way to Dan. Dan wasn't founded as a city until Judges 18:29. Whoever wrote Deuteronomy 34:1 lived well after Moses' death, and was incorrect in stating that God showed Moses Gilead, all the way to Dan. Dan didn't exist at that time.

Dan was already a territory long before Laish was named after Dan (Gen 14:14).

Laish wasnâ??t the only conquest of the Danites to be named after their father (Joshua 19:47).

The syntax and vernacular of Deuteronomy is also almost entirely unique to the Hebrew Bible. Only one other book shares many of the unique words and phrases: Kings.

Examples?

I can't imagine how someone could argue that Deuteronomy was written during Moses life (or shortly thereafter) and never redacted. If you'd like to argue against my evidence, be my guest.

Since youâ??ve only provided one specific for me to work with, I canâ??t reach the same conclusion you have.

Now, on to theological manipulation. Exodus 23:17 mentions a ritual to be performed by all the men in Israel three times a year. The KJV says they are to appear before the Lord three times in the year. The Hebrew is odd, though. This phrase "appear before the Lord" is used several times in the scriptures, and each time it alludes to Exodus 23:17, but in many of the examples, the morphology of the word "appear" in Hebrew is clearly active, and not passive. "Appear" is the passive translation of the word "to see." In Hebrew, the phrase was originally "see the face of God," but the Masoretic scribes didn't like the idea that God's face could be seen, so they changed the voweling to make it read passively, even though it's clearly active.

What manuscripts are you referencing to conclude that â??the phrase was originally â??see the face of Godâ??â??

This manipulation extends clear into the end of Exodus, where another scribe interpolated the statement that none can see the face of God and live.

Yet John reinforces this (John 1:18, 4:12).

Throughout pre-exilic texts, however, the belief that man could and did see the face of God was prevalent. I consider that to be a rather significant theological manipulation.

Examples?

In addition there's the assertion that Jerusalem is to be the exclusive home to the temple of Yahweh, but the Old Testament mentions over a half-dozen working temples during the time period between Solomon's reign and the exile. Deuteronomy clearly post-dates that.

References?

What was the purpose of the Temple? It was the replacement of the Tabernacle, a permanent home for the Holy of Holies, where the presence of God would descend. Christ's work on the cross effectively ended the need for a temple, symbolized with the tearing of the veil (Mat 27:51, Mark 15:38).

Christâ??s work on the cross that made it commonplace for all believers to receive the Spirit within. His crucifixion, once and for all, paved the way for men to become righteous, not of their own accord, but rather through accepting the grace and forgiveness offered by Christ. Strict and faithful obedience to the Law couldnâ??t do that.

Galatians 2:21

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Thus, Godâ??s spirit no longer would dwell in man-made temples (Acts 7:48, 17:24), rather we became the temple.

1 Corinthians 3:16

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

QUOTE(jmordecai @ Nov 24 2008, 02:54 PM) *
We can reach certainty on two things: (1) the conclusions are all over the map and (2) its all speculation. I donâ??t need to be an expert with all the moon-landing conspiracists to apply a common sense approach, for which I concluded there was no moon landing hoax.

You admitted it is speculation in the third sentence of this post.

Suppose someone like Samuel or Ezra (as some scholars) have proposed completed the last chapter of Deuteronomy, or rather, it is actually the first book of Joshua (as others have proposed), thatâ??s not enough to conclude that all of Deuteronomy was redacted.

I agree with very few of them. I can demonstrate what Hilkiah found because one of his reforms was to tear down the other temples and obliterate the other priesthood. The only place in all of scripture where the requirement is found that Jerusalem be the only place for the valid temple is Deuteronomy. If he found something other than Deuteronomy, it's been since lost, because we absolutely do not have it.

If Hilkiah indeed found Deuteronomy, why cant Josiahâ??s reforms be a return to the observance of the Mosaic Law based on Deuteronomy? Instead LDS have to purport that Deut was manipulated to reflect what it is today, so what was hidden was actually closer to modern Mormon doctrine.

If I accept the notion that what Josiah did was devious, and that the true doctrines were lost, when will LDS reintroduce Baal and Asherahâ??removed by Josiahâ??s reforms? Or do LDS only want to point to the elements of the reforms that match modern Mormon doctrine?

Here's Britannicaâ??s take on the reforms:

Religious reformation in Judah during the reign of King Josiah (c. 640 â?? 609 BC). As Assyria's hold on Israel weakened, Josiah waged a campaign against foreign cults and had their altars and idols removed from the Temple. He called for a return to the observance of Mosaic Law, based on the book of the Law discovered in the Temple of Jerusalem (c. 622 BC), believed to be the same book as the law code in the Book of Deuteronomy. Rural sanctuaries and fertility cults were destroyed and the worship of Yahweh (the God of Israel) was centralized at Jerusalem.

But that presupposes there was no redaction of those NT texts. You can't argue that one text can't have been redacted because another text that also could have been redacted says so.

If by â??redactedâ?? that means the entire text is suspect and untrustworthy, then to be consistent all scripture is untrustworthy, included the BoM and the D&C. Like Deuteronomy, when another completes a letter, it doesnâ??t automatically mean the entire content is suspect, anymore than a foreword by a guest author discredits the rest of a book.

On one hand LDS quote James 1:5 as the appropriate method to determine truth, while on the other hand discredit the reliability of the scriptures. LDS ask us to use concepts such as â??prayerâ?? and the â??testimony of the Holy Ghostâ?? to determine truth, while at the same time undermining the scriptures for which we glean such concepts. Itâ??s circular reasoning.

LDS only use whichever side of the argument they need to win their point.

If I canâ??t cite redacted scripture to reinforce other redacted scripture, then you canâ??t cite redacted scripture to discredit redacted scripture. Thereâ??s no standard by which we can move forward.

At some point one has to question their theology when itâ??s built on exceptions, excuses and conspiracies.

QUOTE(jmordecai @ Nov 24 2008, 02:54 PM) *
Visible in what way? An epiphany like a pillar of cloud? Or a personage of flesh and bones? Give me some ref. in the BoM.
Either way. God's face could clearly be seen in the book of Ether, but Exodus seems to say that no one could see his face and live, despite the fact that numerous prophets are said to have seen his face.

And the refs in Ether are? And the refs of the prophets are?

The idea that God has a son in heaven was common in pre-exilic times, but was later shunned, and in Rabbinic times was condemned as a heresy. The logos found in John was actually a popular Jewish idea, but was suppressed by Jewish authorities because they were afraid it sounded like polytheism.

So John is credible when speaking of the Logos, but is not credible when reinforcing Exodus.

What evidence do you have that the pre-exilic Jews believed God has a son in heaven?

QUOTE(jmordecai @ Nov 24 2008, 02:54 PM) *
The U&M â?? youâ??re kidding?
No, I'm not. Is that really all you have to say?

Okay, whatâ??s the conspiracy over this?

No, you're not getting mixed messages. You're conflating two clearly distinct ideologies.
I'm referring to the reforms of the Sermon on the Mount, and others like it.

I would consider those minor compared to correcting the fundamentally alleged reforms.

That he was with the father and responsible for the creation of the earth.

Thatâ??s it? So all the other reforms He left standing.

I haven't overlooked anything. How many prophets can you name from the Bible that lived after the exile?

If we date the reforms to the reign of Josiah (640-609 BC):

Weâ??d have to believe his reforms would have duped: Jeremiah (627-585), Zephaniah (640-620), Nahum (615-612), and Habakuk (612) who all overlapped that time. Then we have Daniel (605-536), Ezekiel (592-570), Zechariah (520-518), Hagaai (520), and Malachi (450-430).

Can you please show me where God gives a precise definition of the word translate?

You are changing the argument and reinforcing my point that LDS have no choice but to minimize the JST. You want to interject a vague definition of â??translationâ?? to provide a loophole as to why the JST kept the reforms. Also, if LDS maintain the trustworthiness of the JST, then that also creates a problem for the LDS claims about the untrustworthiness of the Bible.

If God's intention of the JST was to be a project that LDS would come to minimize, then that is squarely at odds with all of the prophecy and intention given it in the D&C.

Hereâ??s my standard: whatever credibility you want to apply to Smithâ??s translation of the Book of Mormon should be the same credibility we should apply to Smithâ??s translation of the Bible.

This is a perfect example of LDS having to squirm through exceptions and excuses to make their contorted apologia fit.

The only factual assertion made by Christ is that certain things were written in those books. He makes no qualitative judgment of them, nor does he specifically refer to any single book of scripture. This is absolutely atrocious argumentation. I suggest you step it up a notch.

You missed the â??qualitativeâ?? judgment. If Christ doesnâ??t value the scripture as mentioned, then that contradicts why he â??opened their understanding that they might understand the scriptures.â?

Christ validates the TaNaKh (the Law of Moses (the Torah), the Prophets and the Psalms (the Writings) because Christ himself says he fulfilled what was in them.

Luke 24:44-45

"And he said unto them ... that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,"

QUOTE

Which verses in Josephus and 2 Esdras, and what textual evidence do you have that there ever was a council at Jamnia that decided any canon?

Here is an article with explanations of references for all these and more:

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildeb...nJamnia-WTJ.pdf

Clearly I'm talking about the reforms.

Okay so the Temple and the priestsâ?¦ since Christâ??s work on the cross eliminated the need for both (priests donâ??t administer sacrifices anymore)â?¦ letâ??s move on to the more consequential doctrines: Where do Christ and/or the 12 disciples correct the reforms lasting implications in the BoM such as:

A Queen of heaven

Multiple gods

Exaltation (becoming a god)

Child sacrifice

Restoring the Melchezedek priesthood

Restoring the â??places for the angelsâ? such as Asheron (Wisdom)

- Baker, What Did King Josiah Reform?, May 6th 2003 BYU

Do you endorse all of Barkerâ??s findings, or just the oneâ??s that fit modern LDS doctrine?

-----

When Satan tempted Christ, Jesus responded by quoting from Deuteronomy:

Matthew 4

4 Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" (Deut 8:3)

7 Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" (Deut 6:16)

10 Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'" (Deut 6:13)

-----

â??We can never know for certain what it was that Josiah purged or why he did it.â?

- Margaret Barker, May 6th 2003, BYU â??What Did King Josiah Reform?

Kevin Christensen · November 27, 2008

Jmordecai says:

The Deuteronomic Reforms conspiracy is used to explain Judaismâ??s doctrinal transformations.

You could be more specific and refer to my Paradigms Regained, which appeared in 2002. Not every LDS scholar agrees with me, but many have taken up the investigation to see what comes of it. And I've learned a great deal since I wrote it.

Jmordecai says:

In the simplest of terms: the allegation is that the text of Deuteronomy (and possibly other early OT texts) that we have today were altered, which erased the early doctrines that would prove to be consistent with modern Mormonism.

This is way too simple. The evidence of the DSS scrolls, which predate the MT by 1000 years show evidence that the MT had indeed been altered here and there. Margaret Barker observes that not only do the variant passages turn out to be important for Christian claims, but the distribution of unreadable passages in the MT aren't random either, but turn out to be passages important to the Christians. For instance Psalm 110 and Isaiah 53 both have important opacities (words that can't be read) in the MT Hebrew. The New Testament quotes these two scriptures more than any other, so their opacities are likely deliberate. The claims we make that key texts have changed rest upon hard evidence. They are not mere allegations.

For example, MormonMason elsewhere correctly pointed to the altered texts of Deuteronomy 32:8-9:

When the Most High [that is, El Elyon] gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God [the KJV has children of Israel].

For the LORDâ??s portion [that is, Yahwehâ??s portion] is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.

In point of fact, Deuteronomy has been altered, here and elsewhere. And the text as is shows evidence of layers of editing, including both accretion and deletion. That doesn't mean we can't use the book as scripture. It means we need to pay attention to what happened to it. Some of the message of Deuteronomy is in the way it shows it's own transmission history.

Jmordecai also said:

The â??Deuteronomic Reformsâ? conspiracy rests upon what exactly Hilkiah found.

We do not know exactly what Hilkiah found, but there are good grounds for associating what he found with a version of some of Deuteronomy. The hypothesis of extensive reforms comes from texts and archeology that cast light on the period. The past few decades have seen increasing attention given to Josiah. For example, Friedman, Holliday, Sweeny, Doorly, Leuchter, Dever, and Barker, not to mention Barrack's The King and Cemetaries, which argued on archeological grounds that the 2 Kings account changed its description of the reform to place events that actually occurred in the South to other locations in the North, as as way of making the reform seem more far reaching than it really was.

Jmordecai says

If we date the reforms to the reign of Josiah (640-609 BC):
Weâ??d have to believe his reforms would have duped: Jeremiah (627-585), Zephaniah (640-620), Nahum (615-612), and Habakuk (612) who all overlapped that time. Then we have Daniel (605-536), Ezekiel (592-570), Zechariah (520-518), Hagaai (520), and Malachi (450-430).

Not really. Most scholars credit the Deuteronomists with having edited these texts, pointing out layers of accretion in Deuteronomy. Margaret also cites Mettinger's The Dethronement of Saboath that â??the concept of God advocated by the Deuteronomistic theology is strikingly abstract. The throne concept has vanished and the anthropomophic characteristics of God are on their way to oblivion. Thus the form of God plays no part in the D work on the Sinai theophany. (Deut. 4.12), [Cited in The Great Angel, 100.)

Note that Jeremiah 17 much to say about the throne and that the anthropomorphic passages in Ezekiel were long suppressed, even when canonized.

I've looked closely at Jeremiah who does not seem to me at all duped. Notice that 2 Kings 21:24 reports that the people of the land slew those who had killed Josiah's father Amon, and then these same people of the land installed the eight year old Josiah as King. It seems to me that at this time â??people of the landâ? refers to the landowners. It does not say who was responsible for the King's education, but is it not hard to guess, since, as Sweeny put it, â??the Deuteronomic Torah addresses the needs of the people of the land, the very group that put Josiah in power.â? (Sweeny, King Josiah: Lost Messiah of Israel, 166). According to 2 Chronicles 34:2, the reforms starts in the twelfth year of Josiah's reign, which makes him 20. Then when we get to Jeremiah's call, which comes the next year (Jer. 1:2). Interestingly, Jeremiah reports that he has been called â??against the kings of Judah, against the princes thereof (the word here refers to the city elders), against the priests thereof, and against the people of the land.â? (Jer. 1:18)

That is, Jeremiah is called the year after the reform begins against the very people who have been implementing the reform. While I've read several books by scholars who associated Jeremiah with the reform, none of them refer to this passage. Friedman had claimed that Jeremiah agreed with Deuteronomy on â??practically every major point.â? (Who Wrote the Bible? 2nd ed. 146). This seems major to me. And I see more.

Jeremiah has surprisingly little to say about Josiah. Those scholars I have read who align him with the reform tend to do so on political and linguistic grounds, rather than on theological grounds. It's the theological issues I find most striking.

Jeremiah objects to someone turning away from traditional understanding, making innovations:

Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where [is] the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk [therein] (Jeremiah 6:16).

Because my people hath forgotten me, they have burned incense to vanity, and they have caused them to stumble in their ways [from] the ancient paths, to walk in paths, [in] a way not cast up (Jeremiah 18:15).

What kind of innovation does Jeremiah object to?

Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods?

maklelan · November 27, 2008

Before I begin, your statements make it abundantly clear that you're totally unaware of the most basic and most universal academic stances and responses regarding the Deuteronomistic history. Most of the things you say in this response betray an abysmal capacity with redaction criticism of any kind, so this will be my last response to you unless you can actually provide somethign substantive. You asked for examples and references and I give them in this post, but if you fail to respond to those examples and references I'm afraid I can't waste any more of my time.

maklelan
So you concede my point that this is a theory.

For the love of Enkidu, that's not a point. Recognizing that it's a theory is also not a concession. You can't have a "law" in Hebrew Bible textual criticism. It's all theory. I'm sincerely dumbfounded that you think that is at all significant.

Dan was already a territory long before Laish was named after Dan (Gen 14:14).

Which was still well after Moses' time, but the text doesn't say the territory or the land of Dan. It says "Dan," which means the city. Learn your Hebrew vernacular.

Laish wasnâ??t the only conquest of the Danites to be named after their father (Joshua 19:47).

Utterly irrelevant. You also have a list of Edomite kings that didn't exist until after Moses' death, as well as statements that "there never again arose a prophet in Israel like Moses." How long after Moses' life was this composed that that statement is at all significant? How about "And it is there unto this day"? How much time has to elapse until that statement is significant?

Examples?

Compare 2 Kings 23:25/Deuteronomy 6:5 (bekol lebabka ubekol nafsheka ubekol me'odeka), 2 Kings 22:17/Deuteronomy 4:28; 27:15 (ma'aseh yedeihem), and 2 Kings 22:19/Deuteronomy 28:37 (liheyot leshamah). 2 Kings 23:3 is a mixture of Deut 3:5; 6:5; 6:17. shuv el-yahweh is also repeated numerous times in both books.

Since youâ??ve only provided one specific for me to work with, I canâ??t reach the same conclusion you have.

Utterly meaningless reply. It only takes one element that was impossible for Moses to have written to prove that it wasn't written during Moses' lifetime. If you can't even engage that one element then you lose.

What manuscripts are you referencing to conclude that â??the phrase was originally â??see the face of Godâ??â??

It's Hebrew morphology. The passive would have be lehira'ot. The word is lire'ot. It's missing the he. An active verb can't magically become passive just because you want it to. All the Hebrew grammars and lexicons recognize that it was active.

Yet John reinforces this (John 1:18, 4:12).

Utterly irrelevant. John has nothing whatsoever to do with the composition of Deuteronomy.

Examples?

Besides all the times "see the face of God" appears in Exodus and Deuteronomy, Gen 32:20; Exod 33:11; Deut 31:17â??18; Isa 1:12; Ezek 20:35; 39:29; Ps 42:2; 80:3, 7, 19;

References?

Ordinances that can only be performed in temples and accouterments associated exclusively with the temple (like ephods, etc.) are mentioned at Bethel, Dan, Gilgal, Mizpah, Bethlehem, Nob, Ophrah, and Gibeah. Jewish/Israelite temples at Leontopolis, Elephantine, and Arad have been uncovered by archaeologists. Whenever you read of something being done "before the Lord" in the Bible, it means in a temple.

What was the purpose of the Temple?

It had several purposes. One was to provide a place for sacrifices and other necessary rituals. Another was to provide a sense of community and unity.

It was the replacement of the Tabernacle, a permanent home for the Holy of Holies, where the presence of God would descend.

That's according to the Deuteronomist. You're using circular reasoning.

Christ's work on the cross effectively ended the need for a temple, symbolized with the tearing of the veil (Mat 27:51, Mark 15:38).

That's one of many interpretations, but, again, the New Testament has nothing whatsoever to do with the composition of the Old.

Christâ??s work on the cross that made it commonplace for all believers to receive the Spirit within. His crucifixion, once and for all, paved the way for men to become righteous, not of their own accord, but rather through accepting the grace and forgiveness offered by Christ. Strict and faithful obedience to the Law couldnâ??t do that.

This presupposes the Bible is univocal from beginning to end, and that every faithful person in it was preaching the exact same ideologies with absolutely no variation. That's a ludicrous assertion to make, and I certainly don't presuppose it.

Galatians 2:21
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Thus, Godâ??s spirit no longer would dwell in man-made temples (Acts 7:48, 17:24), rather we became the temple.
1 Corinthians 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

This in no way precludes temples. This is just another interpretive assertion.

If Hilkiah indeed found Deuteronomy, why cant Josiahâ??s reforms be a return to the observance of the Mosaic Law based on Deuteronomy?

Because the Mosaic law never included those requirements.

Instead LDS have to purport that Deut was manipulated to reflect what it is today, so what was hidden was actually closer to modern Mormon doctrine.

Which is close to the truth.

If I accept the notion that what Josiah did was devious, and that the true doctrines were lost, when will LDS reintroduce Baal and Asherahâ??removed by Josiahâ??s reforms? Or do LDS only want to point to the elements of the reforms that match modern Mormon doctrine?

It depends. Which reforms are actually requirements from the rest of the Torah, and which are completely absent? We find those suspect which seem to be entirely invented by the author of Deuteronomy.

Here's Britannicaâ??s take on the reforms:
Religious reformation in Judah during the reign of King Josiah (c. 640 â?? 609 BC). As Assyria's hold on Israel weakened, Josiah waged a campaign against foreign cults and had their altars and idols removed from the Temple. He called for a return to the observance of Mosaic Law, based on the book of the Law discovered in the Temple of Jerusalem (c. 622 BC), believed to be the same book as the law code in the Book of Deuteronomy. Rural sanctuaries and fertility cults were destroyed and the worship of Yahweh (the God of Israel) was centralized at Jerusalem.

Whoopdie doo. Who cares what an encyclopedia says? Can't you find real scholarship?

maklelan · November 27, 2008

If by â??redactedâ?? that means the entire text is suspect and untrustworthy,

No, that's not at all what redacted means. That's absolutely ludicrous.

then to be consistent all scripture is untrustworthy, included the BoM and the D&C. Like Deuteronomy, when another completes a letter, it doesnâ??t automatically mean the entire content is suspect, anymore than a foreword by a guest author discredits the rest of a book.

And no one has ever averred as much. This is an infantile straw man.

On one hand LDS quote James 1:5 as the appropriate method to determine truth, while on the other hand discredit the reliability of the scriptures.

Trusting one scripture doesn't mean you have to trust them all, does it?

LDS ask us to use concepts such as â??prayerâ?? and the â??testimony of the Holy Ghostâ?? to determine truth, while at the same time undermining the scriptures for which we glean such concepts.

I think you mean "from which" we glean. . . In the end, though, no one is obligated to an "all or nothing" faith in the Bible. To insist that we are is asinine.

Itâ??s circular reasoning.

It absolutely is not.

LDS only use whichever side of the argument they need to win their point.

Not true. You'll find I subscribe to many theories that some Latter-day Saints would not agree with.

If I canâ??t cite redacted scripture to reinforce other redacted scripture, then you canâ??t cite redacted scripture to discredit redacted scripture. Thereâ??s no standard by which we can move forward.

That's only true if your one and only point of reference is the Bible. Fortunately we have logic and reason, in addition to the guidance of the Lord. If you remove everything but the Bible you're left chasing your tail for all of eternity.

At some point one has to question their theology when itâ??s built on exceptions, excuses and conspiracies.

Are you at all familiar with the history of the Bible? You've just described the majority of its composition.

And the refs in Ether are? And the refs of the prophets are?
So John is credible when speaking of the Logos, but is not credible when reinforcing Exodus.

Actually he's not credible when speaking of the logos. That is a non-Johannine creation hymn that was later added to the text.

What evidence do you have that the pre-exilic Jews believed God has a son in heaven?

The numerous and explicit statements regarding the validity of multiple gods. Deuteronomy 32:8, for example. The actual texts reads, "When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of God." They later added the letters "y," "s," and "r" to the beginning of el so it wouldn't refer to children of God. That is attested in the Septuagint and in all the Dead Sea Scroll copies of Deuteronomy. The new Oxford critical edition of the Hebrew Bible actually restores the original text. You can read that portion of the OHB here.

Okay, whatâ??s the conspiracy over this?

The Urim and Thummim were basically tools of divination, like casting lots. The ancient Jews decided they didn't like the sounds of that, so their exact function has been obscured.

I would consider those minor compared to correcting the fundamentally alleged reforms.

The higher law of Jesus Christ (love thy enemy, etc.) is minor compared to only using the Jerusalem temple? Try to be honest, here.

Thatâ??s it? So all the other reforms He left standing.

Nothing else was relevant to the higher law.

If we date the reforms to the reign of Josiah (640-609 BC):
Weâ??d have to believe his reforms would have duped: Jeremiah (627-585), Zephaniah (640-620), Nahum (615-612), and Habakuk (612) who all overlapped that time. Then we have Daniel (605-536), Ezekiel (592-570), Zechariah (520-518), Hagaai (520), and Malachi (450-430).

You didn't answer my question, and those dates are ludicrous (e.g., Daniel was composed during the reign of Antiochus IV). There's more to the Deuteronomist than just Josiah.

You are changing the argument and reinforcing my point that LDS have no choice but to minimize the JST.

No, I'm just beign objective about everything, not just the stuff I disagree with.

You want to interject a vague definition of â??translationâ?? to provide a loophole as to why the JST kept the reforms.

No, I want to avoid dogmatism and subjectivity. If that cuts the legs out from underneath your argument then so be it, but don't pretend you invalidate it by trying to couch it in those terms.

maklelan · November 27, 2008

Also, if LDS maintain the trustworthiness of the JST,

Are you insisting that we do?

then that also creates a problem for the LDS claims about the untrustworthiness of the Bible.

That's the most ridiculous of false inferences I think I've ever heard.

If God's intention of the JST was to be a project that LDS would come to minimize, then that is squarely at odds with all of the prophecy and intention given it in the D&C.

Way off base, again.

Hereâ??s my standard: whatever credibility you want to apply to Smithâ??s translation of the Book of Mormon should be the same credibility we should apply to Smithâ??s translation of the Bible.

That's how I've always done it.

This is a perfect example of LDS having to squirm through exceptions and excuses to make their contorted apologia fit.

You make me laugh.

You missed the â??qualitativeâ?? judgment. If Christ doesnâ??t value the scripture as mentioned, then that contradicts why he â??opened their understanding that they might understand the scriptures.â?

He opened my mind so I could understand Spanish when I needed to on my mission, but that doesn't mean I exalt Spanish to the realm of infallibility. Your inferences are absolutely meaningless.

Christ validates the TaNaKh (the Law of Moses (the Torah), the Prophets and the Psalms (the Writings) because Christ himself says he fulfilled what was in them.

And where does he say exactly what texts and what version of them were part of the Tanakh? He cites the Septuagint in several places, but those verses conflict with the Masoretic texts, which conflict with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Which version was Christ citing as the true version of the Bible?

Luke 24:44-45"And he said unto them ... that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,"

Outstanding.

QUOTEWhich verses in Josephus and 2 Esdras, and what textual evidence do you have that there ever was a council at Jamnia that decided any canon?Here is an article with explanations of references for all these and more:http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildeb...nJamnia-WTJ.pdf

The text from Josephus says nothing about canon, but rather mentions certain books belonging to the Jews. Also, the paper uses rather poor and fallacious appeals to authority and popularity in trying to prop up the arguments about Jamnia. Rather than engage the discussion, the author just cites a bunch of authors who nakedly assert it really happened. In addition, not one of those authorities comes from the last 30 years.

Okay so the Temple and the priestsâ?¦ since Christâ??s work on the cross eliminated the need for both (priests donâ??t administer sacrifices anymore)â?¦

Sacrifice was not the only job of the office of the priest. You're making naked assertions again.

letâ??s move on to the more consequential doctrines: Where do Christ and/or the 12 disciples correct the reforms lasting implications in the BoM such as:A Queen of heaven

First, I don't know what that syntactical train wreck means. Second, please cite the verse in the Book of Mormon that mentions this.

Multiple gods

The Bible does a much better job of that.

Exaltation (becoming a god)

See directly above.

Child sacrifice

?

Restoring the Melchezedek priesthoodRestoring the â??places for the angelsâ? such as Asheron (Wisdom)

Now you're being silly.

- Baker, What Did King Josiah Reform?, May 6th 2003 BYU

I don't know what you're groping at here.

Do you endorse all of Barkerâ??s findings, or just the oneâ??s that fit modern LDS doctrine?

I already responded to this, but to repeat myself, I endorse very few of her findings, and the ones I support are usually not unique to Latter-day Saint ideologies.

When Satan tempted Christ, Jesus responded by quoting from Deuteronomy:Matthew 4 4 Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" (Deut 8:3) 7 Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" (Deut 6:16) 10 Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'" (Deut 6:13)

Can you show me that these weren't words that were put in Christ's mouth by the people who composed these texts, or am I just supposed to accept that, in an argument on the infallibility of the Old Testament, I am required to accept the infallibility of the New Testament?

â??We can never know for certain what it was that Josiah purged or why he did it.â?- Margaret Barker, May 6th 2003, BYU â??What Did King Josiah Reform?

Stunning.

Kevin Christensen · November 30, 2008

In his listing of those whom the reforms would have to have duped, besides Jeremiah and Ezekiel whom I mentioned in my long post of November 26th, today I noticed this in Zephaniah 3, who also prophesied in the days of Josiah:

Woe to her that is filthy and polluted, to the oppressing city!
2 She obeyed not the voice; she received not correction; she trusted not in the Lord; she drew not near to her God.
3 Her princes within her are roaring lions; her judges are evening wolves; they gnaw not the bones till the morrow.
4 Her prophets are alight and treacherous persons: her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the law.

I referred to Jer. 1:18 and Ezek. 22:25-31 which also listed these groups as being responsible for problems in Jerusalem. Notice that Zephaniah's overall message is laden with imagery from the Day of the LORD, which in temple terms precedes the Day of Atonement, which as Margaret notes, does not appear in the Deut. 16 sacred calendar. Here, he gives Josiah's Jerusalem no credit for obedience. The princes are the city elders. Josiah sent his priests into the santuary to remove sacred objects to which only the High Priest should have access only on the Day of Atonement. The reference to their have done violence to the law is consistent with claims in Jeremiah and 1 Enoch and Jacob 4:14 that the scriptures had been tampered with.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Darth_Bill · December 1, 2008

I've read Margret Barker's book and listened to her talks on this subject. I had a question pop into my mind as I'm reading Brant Gardner's book on 1Nephi. Brant appears to buy into the premise. I must say that I had to fall back on memory of Barker's book to figure out that the scroll spoken of in Kings is actually Deuteronomy. That aside, Brant does lay out that the brass plates can be used as a "Northern" tradition or collection. So here I have Josiah creating the book of Deuteronomy. In the few years following, it must have been copied onto the brass plates, as Nephi mentions the 5 books of Moses on the brass plates. Is that a viable position? If Lehi/Nephi didn't buy into the Josiah reforms, wouldn't he have rejected Moses' attribution to Deuteronomy?

Does this make sense? I was very disappointed that in the verse in question, in 1Nephi 4, Brant didn't seem to take issue with the "Five books of Moses" yet lays out page after page before that to explain that this is ultimately why Lehi left.

I'm just confused on the matter.

Also, and I apologize if this has been addressed elsewhere, how do we jive Jesus' use of Deut in his dialog with Satan as well as our use of Deut 32 to strengthen our view of redaction as well as henotheism?

Oh, found one

Can you show me that these weren't words that were put in Christ's mouth by the people who composed these texts, or am I just supposed to accept that, in an argument on the infallibility of the Old Testament, I am required to accept the infallibility of the New Testament?

Believe me, I'm not an inerrantist, but at what point do we start wondering if anything is reliable? I'm not above thinking that the gospels are from all over, but how much do we have to shoot down to sustain our other theories? I mean, while I love reading about the reform, a lot of it is speculation. We THINK this might have happened. It hasn't been revealed that it has happened. I mean, JS didn't have a problem with kicking Song of Solomon out of the canon. Why would it have been harder to do the same with Deut.? Social pressure?

Don't know. I'm just wondering at what point the theory breaks down.

Kevin Christensen · December 1, 2008

Deuteronomy as we have it is a layered text. That is, it wasn't composed all at once, but it comes with layers of addition and editing. In various discussions here, Ben McGuire has described the case for a proto-Deuteronomy and has tentatively reported that all of the Deuteronomy quotes in the Book of Mormon come from the oldest texts.

FWIW, Kevin Barney has suggested that the reference to the "five" Books of Moses could be a translator gloss by Joseph Smith. That's a possibility, though not the only one. It could be a reference to the five Books of Moses is not revelation about the authorship of ever single word, but simply a traditional way of designating the collection. It used to be the fashion to claim that the P source was post Exilic, but Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible? shows Jeremiah quoting/alluding to P, which makes it pre-Exilic. And the oldest Biblical now available are two silver scrolls from Jerusalem 600 BC which have quotations from Numbers on them. In an appendix to The Hidden Book of the Bible, Friedman argues against the notion of a post-Exilic composition of the Pentatech on grounds makes the case that many passages use archaic Hebrew. But he also admits to post-Exilic redaction. Jacob 4:14 seems to me to imply that some pre-Exilic redaction was happening.

The studies that I have read on the Deuteronomist reformers suggest that it was composed and/or transmitted by Northern Kingdom priests, who then brought it down to Jerusalem as refugees from the destruction of the Northern Kingdom.

We don't know when or by whom the Brass Plates were prepared, although there are some useful indications to show that they did not contain same text that comes down as the Masoretic Hebrew. For example, see Ben McGuire's FAIR paper comparing the David and Laban accounts. Also Noel Reynold's has a study in a By Study and By Faith volume arguing that the Book of Mormon text presupposes something like the Book of Moses, rather than Genesis.

In my essay in Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem, I quoted Marvin Sweeny's case that Deuteronomy addresses the needs of the "people of the land" who installed Josiah into power, which suggests to me that Josiah tutors had more to do with Hilkiah's Book of the Law than did Josiah. Scholars have noted that there seem to be connections between Hezekiah's reform at the time of Isaiah, and Josiah's later reform.

It was John Sorenson who originally observed that the Book of Mormon shows characteristics associated with the E source, which means a Northern Kingdom origin. Steve St. Clair used to have an online paper taking that a bit further.

In the 1998 Isaiah in the Book of Mormon volume, John W. Welch suggested that the Brass Plates were prepared for King Josiah's coronation. I've subsequently suggested that they were prepared during the reign of Jehoiakim, after Josiah's death at the hands of the Egyptians. I see them as have been prepared during a period when the Reformers were in some disarray, not for Josiah, but for the Egyptian library in the same way that the Septuaguint was later done for a later Egyptian King. On the other hand, in my reading of Brant's Second Witness, he seems to see Sherem's arguments as having come from his exposure to a reformed version Israelite religion as preserved on the Brass plates. I've suggested that Sherem could be a Mulekite trader. Given the state of the evidence, opinions can and do differ.

Given the state of the evidence, it's premature to ask for final answers, so the best we can do is to try and raise the kinds of issues that must be accounted for by a viable theory.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Sign In

5 Practical Reasons To Reject The Deuteronomic Reforms Conspiracy

Recommended Posts

jmordecai

Kevin Christensen

LifeOnaPlate

smac97

maklelan

rameumptom

jmordecai

jmordecai

maklelan

jmordecai

LifeOnaPlate

maklelan

jmordecai

jmordecai

Lamanite

maklelan

maklelan

jmordecai

Kevin Christensen

maklelan

maklelan

maklelan

Kevin Christensen

Darth_Bill

Kevin Christensen

Archived

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse