Book of Mormon as literature

[Joseph Antley]

In a way that would never seem odd to future trends of the English language.

Come on, Volgadon. You know very well that 21st century American Standard English is the culmination of the English language.

[Nathair/|\]

There are other problems such as the mixing up of the Testaments. We have NT ordinances being performed in OT times etc... This doesn't seem genuine to me. Addionally, it would be remiss of me not to say that I have very serious reservations about the historicity of the book (but I know you guys have heard enough of this stuff... It's just something we'll have to agree to disagree on). So my assessment of the BoM isn't just from this specific text.

Sorry, you're just a wee bit out of date. This was answered at least as far back as 1964, when the second edition of Hugh Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Mormon was released.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=60&chapid=596

It would be nice to see something new.

[Nathair/|\]

Come on, Volgadon. You know very well that 21st century American Standard English is the culmination of the English language.

Just English? I thought it was the culmination of all human language, improving even on the original Adamic.

[volgadon]

My initial point was that in the Bible we have a diversity of literary styles ranging from history to poetry to apocalypse to law to letters as well as the gospels and so on. I then made the point that in the BoM we don't have this sort of literary diversity.

History- plenty of that. 3 Nephi 4, for instance.

Poetry- 2 Nephi 4:17-35.

Apocalypse- Ether 13, 1 Nephi 14:8-30.

Law- Alma 1.

Letters- Alma 56.

Gospel- I assume you mean nativity narratives. 1 Nephi 11 and Alma 7.

There are also assumptions, allegories, apologia, resurrection types involving women, sermons, kingship texts, Seidel's law, chiastic structures, biblical forms of punctuation, temple and ritual purity imagery, wordplay, allusions, and so on and so forth.

[volgadon]

Just English? I thought it was the culmination of all human language, improving even on the original Adamic.

Reminds me of the novel the Siege of Krishnapur, where the victorian minister can't understand why God would have the Bible written in obscure tongues like Greek and Hebrew which hardly anyone knows, instead of in English, spoken in all corners of the globe.

[volgadon]

What points to it being the work of a 19th Century farm boy from Vermont is the fact that it's so boring.

So you going by your standards, your posts simply must be the work of Joseph Smith. Caught out at last, you sockpuppet, you!

[Thorkyll]

duplicate (deleted)

[Thorkyll]

it points to a modern construction of the book. And further, from someone whose education prevented him from realizing the error of this term. The term "-ites" is just wrong and amateurish. Is that how we describe other people? As "-ites"? Is this the style we see in ancient documents? Or is this a schoolboy error commited by a self-proclaimed prophet? Joseph Smith was a religious genius. But there are a littany of evidences that give his game away. This was a glaring one.

What makes you say "-ites" is an error?

[Thorkyll]

So you going by your standards, your posts simply must be the work of Joseph Smith. Caught out at last, you sockpuppet, you!

Is there any mysticism in the Book of Mormon?

[Nathair/|\]

Is there any mysticism in the Book of Mormon?

King Lamoni's conversion story sounds like a mystical experience to me.

[volgadon]

Is there any mysticism in the Book of Mormon?

Define mysticism.

[Thorkyll]

Define mysticism.

Do you know about tzimtzum (see here) and the shattered vessels? There is also devekut, which is spiritual communion with God; and tikkun, which is repairing of the broken vessels . If the Book of Mormon was written by a Native American Jew then one way of confirming this would be to find references to Jewish mystical concepts. The New Testament contains them, so the Book of Mormon should too.

[Joseph Antley]

The New Testament contains them, so the Book of Mormon should too.

The Book of Mormon is culturally separated from the New Testament by at least 600 years.

[Thorkyll]

The Book of Mormon is culturally separated from the New Testament by at least 600 years.

Jewish mysticism in the New Testament is merely a continuity with the mysticism of the Hebrew Bible (aka "Old" Testament) and the oral traditions which date back to the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Book of Mormon's relation to the New Testament is not the issue. The New Testament is simply an example of how Jewish mysticism enters all Jewish religious texts. If a Native American Jew wrote the Book of Mormon, it should also contain Jewish mysticism.

[volgadon]

Do you know about tzimtzum (see here)and the shattered vessels?

You mean innovative doctrines developed in the 16th century by the Arizal and his followers?

There is also devekut, which is spiritual communion with God;

Or, rather, continual attachment to God, a concept which can be found in the BoM. The Ramban, BTW stated that this can be realised in the normal life of the idividual within the community.

and tikkun, which is repairing of the broken vessels.

Which is another Arizal innovation.

OTOH, the idea of restitution is found in the BoM.

If the Book of Mormon was written by a Native American Jew then one way of confirming this would be to find references to Jewish mystical concepts. The New Testament contains them, so the Book of Mormon should too.

Perhaps you could start by finding the above-mentioned Lurianic concepts in early Jewish mysticism?

[volgadon]

If a Native American Jew wrote the Book of Mormon, it should also contain Jewish mysticism.

Why should it contain very late forms of Kabbalah?

[Thorkyll]

Why should it contain very late forms of Kabbalah?

Who said anything about late forms of kabbalah? Why shouldn't it contain kabbalah already in existence at the time when whatever-his-name-is migrated to the Americas? I'm not saying the Book of Mormon doesn't contain this, I'm just asking. Someone already mentioned the conversion of someone. Do you know where I can read that passage, please?

[volgadon]

Who said anything about late forms of kabbalah?

You did.

Why shouldn't it contain kabbalah already in existence at the time when whatever-his-name-is migrated to the Americas?

What kabbalah would that be?

I'm not saying the Book of Mormon doesn't contain this, I'm just asking.

Sounds more like accusation than enquiry.

Those concepts are not found in the hebrew Bible unless one interprets the accounts spiritually and allegorically, in which case the same can be done with the BoM, indeed, has been done.

Someone already mentioned the conversion of someone. Do you know where I can read that passage, please?

Alma 17 through 19.

[Thorkyll]

You mean innovative doctrines developed in the 16th century by the Arizal and his followers?

Or, rather, continual attachment to God, a concept which can be found in the BoM. The Ramban, BTW stated that this can be realised in the normal life of the idividual within the community.

Which is another Arizal innovation.

OTOH, the idea of restitution is found in the BoM.

Perhaps you could start by finding the above-mentioned Lurianic concepts in early Jewish mysticism?

[Vance]

it points to a modern construction of the book.

You keep saying that, but don't provide any support for it.

And further, from someone whose education prevented him from realizing the error of this term. The term "-ites" is just wrong and amateurish.

Irrelevant and a red herring to boot.

Is that how we describe other people? As "-ites"?

So if I said, "Obamaites", or "Anti-Bushites", or "Clintonites", you wouldn't know who I was talking about?

Well you could always go here,

http://www.answerbag.com/obamaites

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=4000

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Clintonites

and find out.

Is this the style we see in ancient documents?

You mean like the OLD Testament?

Canaanites, Hittites, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Levites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Amorites Arvadites, Zemarites, Hamathites, Amalekites, Girgashites, Gazathites, Ashdothites, Eshkalonites, Gittites, Ekronites, Avites, Hivites and such.

Or is this a schoolboy error commited by a self-proclaimed prophet?

Or a legitimate use of an English suffix, whose definition can be found here,

http://www.macroevolution.net/medical-suffixes-h-j.html

or here,

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861676994/-ite.html

Some examples,

Troglodite

Hermaphrodite

Joseph Smith was a religious genius.

Most people who receive direct communication from God are.

But there are a littany of evidences that give his game away.

Of which you haven't shown us even one. Sorry but just claiming it doesn't make it happen.

This was a glaring one.

Nah, just the imaginations of a confused mind.

Edited to add more Old Testament "ites".

[volgadon]

They're all from the Bible.

Then show me where, rather than how they are interpreted.

Isaac Luria did not invent kabbalah.

Never said he did.

I can find ALL of the kabbalistic concepts I just mentioned in medieval Christian mysticism from Europe centuries before Isaac Luria was born.

I can find them all in any book from any time and from any genre which you care to name.

It's just historical revisionism to claim that these things were "Arizal innovations".

Devekuth isn't, but the others you mentioned are, and are acknowledged as such by quite a few kabbalists. He even varies significantly from his contemporary the ramak.

[Nathair/|\]

Someone already mentioned the conversion of someone.

That was the local lunatic.

[USU78]

Who said anything about late forms of kabbalah? Why shouldn't it contain kabbalah already in existence at the time when whatever-his-name-is migrated to the Americas? I'm not saying the Book of Mormon doesn't contain this, I'm just asking. Someone already mentioned the conversion of someone. Do you know where I can read that passage, please?

It was suggested a few years back that the following exchange:

Mosiah 8:6-21 Now, as soon as Ammon had read the record, the king inquired of him to know if he could interpret languages, and Ammon told him that he could not. And the king said unto him: "Being grieved for the afflictions of my people, I caused that forty and three of my people should take a journey into the wilderness, that thereby they might find the land of Zarahemla, that we might appeal unto our brethren to deliver us out of bondage. And they were lost in the wilderness for the space of many days, yet they were diligent, and found not the land of Zarahemla but returned to this land, having traveled in a land among many waters, having discovered a land which was covered with bones of men, and of beasts, and was also covered with ruins of buildings of every kind, having discovered a land which had been peopled with a people who were as numerous as the hosts of Israel. And for a testimony that the things that they had said are true they have brought twenty-four plates which are filled with engravings, and they are of pure gold. And behold, also, they have brought breastplates, which are large, and they are of brass and of copper, and are perfectly sound. And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished, and the blades thereof were cankered with rust; and there is no one in the land that is able to interpret the language or the engravings that are on the plates. Therefore I said unto thee: Canst thou translate? And I say unto thee again: 'Knowest thou of any one that can translate?' For I am desirous that these records should be translated into our language; for, perhaps, they will give us a knowledge of a remnant of the people who have been destroyed, from whence these records came; or, perhaps, they will give us a knowledge of this very people who have been destroyed; and I am desirous to know the cause of their destruction."

Now Ammon said unto him: "I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer. And behold, the king of the people who are in the land of Zarahemla is the man that is commanded to do these things, and who has this high gift from God."

And the king said that a seer is greater than a prophet. And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God. But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known. Thus God has provided a means that man, through faith, might work mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow beings.

And now, when Ammon had made an end of speaking these words the king rejoiced exceedingly, and gave thanks to God, saying: "Doubtless a great mystery is contained within these plates, and these interpreters were doubtless prepared for the purpose of unfolding all such mysteries to the children of men. O how marvelous are the works of the Lord, and how long doth he suffer with his people; yea, and how blind and impenetrable are the understandings of the children of men; for they will not seek wisdom, neither do they desire that she should rule over them! Yea, they are as a wild flock which fleeth from the shepherd, and scattereth, and are driven, and are devoured by the beasts of the forest."

contained elements similar to, but quite distinct from, Kabbalah. The dialogue is, of course, highly stylized and seems stage-managed, but the central point of the exchange seems to be the "hidden things" contained in the writings that only the seer can unlock. Perhaps he saw things that weren't there?

[zerinus]

The term "-ites" is just wrong and amateurish.

But if it is a direct, literal translation of the original, then it is not; and since you have no way of knowing, your categorical assertions to the contrary are distinctly presumptuous, to say the least.

[Ariarates]

A recent statistical testfor the presence of intentional chiasmus in the Book of Mormon text was made by Boyd F. and Farrell W. Edwards. If that interests you, there has also been some follow-up back and forth discussion on the issue.

Thanks for that link, looks like a very interesting article.

I'm not much of a literary critic but I did have Latin in high school (9 hours a week, btw). When translating texts, we had to show we understood the grammar and the style, and we would get points for "good calls" like unusual sentence constructions or grammatical exceptions. We would get no points for pointing out a chiasmus, though. This was deemed unworthy of the serious student of Latin.