zerinus Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 From what I can see, whatever "exciting textual allusion to obscure biblical motifs" might be discernible in D&C 76 are a function of its heavy reliance on biblical materials, nothing more.It can be argued that way; but then you are crediting Joseph Smith with an in depth scholarly knowledge of the Bible, and incredible literary capability that he simply did not posses. Those literary biblical allusions are not confined to the examples you have cited, but are extremely numerous in all the revelations Joseph Smith received, including the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith would have had to have an unbelievable mastery of the Bible, and immense literary skills to be able to intentionally weave all of this stuff into credible narrative, which he simply did not possess
Rob Bowman Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 zerinus,No, I'm not crediting Joseph Smith with scholarly knowledge of the Bible. The expression "throne theophany" would probably have elicited a "Huh?" from him. The biblical allusions in Joseph's revelations are indeed numerous, but they didn't require any more knowledge of the Bible than was common in his day, even among those with little or no formal education. In any case, if a writing includes allusions to biblical texts, then the reasonable conclusion is that the author or authors of that writing had some knowledge of those biblical texts.It can be argued that way; but then you are crediting Joseph Smith with an in depth scholarly knowledge of the Bible, and incredible literary capability that he simply did not posses. Those literary biblical allusions are not confined to the examples you have cited, but are extremely numerous in all the revelations Joseph Smith received, including the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith would have had to have an unbelievable mastery of the Bible, and immense literary skills to be able to intentionally weave all of this stuff into credible narrative, which he simply did not possess
zerinus Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 zerinus,No, I'm not crediting Joseph Smith with scholarly knowledge of the Bible. The expression "throne theophany" would probably have elicited a "Huh?" from him. The biblical allusions in Joseph's revelations are indeed numerous, but they didn't require any more knowledge of the Bible than was common in his day, even among those with little or no formal education. In any case, if a writing includes allusions to biblical texts, then the reasonable conclusion is that the author or authors of that writing had some knowledge of those biblical texts.I simply do not agree. They require a lot more than that; and the argument that Joseph Smith did not produce them does not wash either. Joseph Smith received many of the revelations recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants in the presence of others, and the spontaneity with which he received them are well attested to. It may be possible to spin theories about the production of the Book of Mormon, but not for the revelations recorded in the D&C. And the BOM theories have never proved credible either. Joseph Smith produced all of them without a doubt; and unless he had divine assistance he never could have. The biblical allusions in the Book of Mormon are immense, and literary mastery with which they are woven together is beyond human capability to produce or fake.
Rob Bowman Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 zerinus,You wrote:I simply do not agree. They require a lot more than that; and the argument that Joseph Smith did not produce them does not wash either. Joseph Smith received many of the revelations recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants in the presence of others, and the spontaneity with which he received them are well attested to. It may be possible to spin theories about the production of the Book of Mormon, but not for the revelations recorded in the D&C. And the BOM theories have never proved credible either. Joseph Smith produced all of them without a doubt; and unless he had divine assistance he never could have. The biblical allusions in the Book of Mormon are immense, and literary mastery with which they are woven together is beyond human capability to produce or fake.I agree that some of Joseph's revelations in D&C were given without much or any preparation, and in some cases it shows. That having been said, some human beings are extremely gifted at speaking extemporaneously, effortlessly weaving quotations and allusions from other sources into their speech.Whether the BOM displays "literary mastery" is another matter. There are places where Mormon scholars have made plausible arguments for literary artistry, and other places that remain something of an embarrassment to such an assessment.
Rob Bowman Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Vance,I honestly didn't expect you to engage the argument I presented. What you quoted from David I have already addressed.Sorry Bowman, but ". . . doesn't seem all that impressive. . . . From what I can see . . ." really isn't a problem at all, and misses some of Davids more important finds.Like,
zerinus Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 zerinus,You wrote:I agree that some of Joseph's revelations in D&C were given without much or any preparation, and in some cases it shows. That having been said, some human beings are extremely gifted at speaking extemporaneously, effortlessly weaving quotations and allusions from other sources into their speech.Whether the BOM displays "literary mastery" is another matter. There are places where Mormon scholars have made plausible arguments for literary artistry, and other places that remain something of an embarrassment to such an assessment.You are entitled to your opinion of course, but evidence speaks to the contrary.
Vance Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Vance,I honestly didn't expect you to engage the argument I presented. What you quoted from David I have already addressed.Well, I honestly didn't expect you to admit that your "argument" sucked nor did I expect you to actually engage David's quote.
David Bokovoy Posted February 7, 2011 Author Posted February 7, 2011 David,You wrote:Um, David, you're missing the obvious: Joseph was alluding to Psalm 82:6.A great text, Bro, no doubt! But I'm afraid historically, Joseph is working on the Book of Revelation at this time. Note D&C 77.Best,--DB
Rob Bowman Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 David,You wrote:A great text, Bro, no doubt! But I'm afraid historically, Joseph is working on the Book of Revelation at this time. Note D&C 77.I believe I have already documented Joseph's heavy indebtedness to Revelation in D&C 76. Nevertheless, D&C 76 also alludes to biblical passages from several other books, including Psalm 82:6, which is the only text in the Bible to refer to creatures as both "gods" and "sons" of God (specifically "sons of the Most High"). In fact, D&C 76 is dated four months prior to D&C 77, and the preface to D&C 76 states it was composed when Joseph was translating the Gospel of John. This explains the many allusions to and quotations from the Gospel of John in D&C 76 (verses 13-17, 20, 23, 25, 32, 35, 39, 42-43, 50-51, 65, 76, 94). Indeed, the allusion to Psalm 82:6 may well have been mediated through John 10:34-36, which quotes the first line of Psalm 82:6.
Vance Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 In fact, D&C 76 is dated four months prior to D&C 77, . . . Wrong again!D&C 76 heading, "A vision given to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Sidney Rigdon, at Hiram, Ohio, February 16, 1832."D&C 77 heading, "Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Hiram, Ohio, March 1832."And then Sections 78, 79, 80, and 81, were also given in "March 1832."At the least 2 weeks, and at the MOST 6 weeks, separate 76 & 77. . . . and the preface to D&C 76 states it was composed when Joseph was translating the Gospel of John. Close but not exactly correct. "It was after the Prophet had translated John 5: 29 that this vision was given."Only one verse is mentioned, and it wasn't during, but after it was translated.Details, details.
David Bokovoy Posted February 7, 2011 Author Posted February 7, 2011 David,You wrote:I believe I have already documented Joseph's heavy indebtedness to Revelation in D&C 76. Nevertheless, D&C 76 also alludes to biblical passages from several other books, including Psalm 82:6, which is the only text in the Bible to refer to creatures as both "gods" and "sons" of God (specifically "sons of the Most High"). In fact, D&C 76 is dated four months prior to D&C 77, and the preface to D&C 76 states it was composed when Joseph was translating the Gospel of John. This explains the many allusions to and quotations from the Gospel of John in D&C 76 (verses 13-17, 20, 23, 25, 32, 35, 39, 42-43, 50-51, 65, 76, 94). Indeed, the allusion to Psalm 82:6 may well have been mediated through John 10:34-36, which quotes the first line of Psalm 82:6.Indeed, and I appreciated the relationship between these texts that you illustrated. However, I believe that the connection goes even further than you've realized. Note the description of Satan in D&C 76:
Cold Steel Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Of course the verse has been influenced by the language of Deuteronomy. Part of the thesis behind this observation is that Joseph's revelations frequently adopt biblical phrases and motifs in a way that reflects ancient conceptions. In terms of your second issue, taking the grammar at face value, the subject would in fact be both heaven and earth.There are two possibilities: 1) the D&C's verses were influenced by the language of the Deuteronomic and BOM text; and 2) all these verses were all products of revelation. Joseph Smith clearly let biblical verses influence his language, but I'd like to think that some of it came from divine inspiration. There are cases in the church where church presidents have handed people a piece of paper saying, "Let my servant so-and-so be called to fulfill the vacancy in the Quorum of the Twelve," and that was that. Joseph occasionally did things that were very similar. Then there are revelations like Section 1, which is, to me, an eloquent introduction to the Doctrine & Covenants. Sometimes the revelations are solely after the manner of our language; other times, I'd like to think the Lord is speaking. Keep the great articles coming! .
volgadon Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 It is a reference to an old southern gospel song. "I'm working on a building, its a Holy Ghost building, for my Lord, for my Lord." June Carter Cash (and Johnny) had it in their family repertoire, and John Fogerty recorded a cool version.
Rob Bowman Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Vance,Regarding the gap in time between D&C 76 and 77, thanks for the correction, though not for the snotty way in which it was given. Regarding the relation of D&C 76 to Joseph's translation of the Gospel of John, you are correct that the preface says the vision was given "after the Prophet had translated John 5:29." However, assuming Joseph wasn't jumping around the Bible, he wasn't finished translating the Gospel of John, since John 6-21 remained to be translated. So I think my statement that D&C 76 was composed while Joseph was translating the Gospel of John is correct.
Rob Bowman Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 David,You wrote:Indeed, and I appreciated the relationship between these texts that you illustrated. However, I believe that the connection goes even further than you've realized. Note the description of Satan in D&C 76:
inquiringmind Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 I read a quote from Joseph Smith to the effect that anything that has a beginning must have an end, and something about that really bothers me.Will the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms have an end?What about our resurrected bodies?There was a time when we had no bodies, and we don't have our ressurected bodies yet.Will they come to an end?If we all started out as disorganized intelligence, must we all end up that way (and what about God Himself, if He wasn't always God)?How can it be true that anything with a beginning must have an end?
Calm Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 I read a quote from Joseph Smith to the effect that anything that has a beginning must have an end, and something about that really bothers me.Will the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms have an end?Who says those kingdoms have a beginning.
inquiringmind Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 Who says those kingdoms have a beginning.Whether they do or not, they would for us, wouldn't they?If everything that has a beginning must have an end, what about the changes in us?What about the bodies we gain from our mortal probations here?Does this embodied, exalted condition have a beginning?Must it have an end?Did Joseph say "must" or "may"?What did he mean?How can everything that has a beginning have an end if we're suppose to gain something permenant from our probation here?Is this thing about everything that has a beginning having an end (if that's what Joseph actually said) and official doctrine of the Church?Has this question been addressed somewhere on the FAIR website (I think I read something once, but can't find it now, can anyone help)?
inquiringmind Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 Whether they do or not, they would for us, wouldn't they?If everything that has a beginning must have an end, what about the changes in us?What about the bodies we gain from our mortal probations here?Does this embodied, exalted condition have a beginning?Must it have an end?Did Joseph say "must" or "may"?What did he mean?How can everything that has a beginning have an end if we're suppose to gain something permenant from our probation here?Is this thing about everything that has a beginning having an end (if that's what Joseph actually said) and official doctrine of the Church?Has this question been addressed somewhere on the FAIR website (I think I read something once, but can't find it now, can anyone help)?Please forgive the typo (I don't know how to edit it.)I meant to ask if this thing about everything that has a beginning having an end is an official church doctrine.I'm looking into Mormonism because I suffered a personal loss recently, this question really bothers me, and I'd appreciate some help here.Thank you.
David Bokovoy Posted February 12, 2011 Author Posted February 12, 2011 Please forgive the typo (I don't know how to edit it.)I meant to ask if this thing about everything that has a beginning having an end is an official church doctrine.I'm looking into Mormonism because I suffered a personal loss recently, this question really bothers me, and I'd appreciate some help here.Thank you.It
TAO Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 But that's my question.If I pass my probation here, and I'm resurrected in a body of flesh and bone, didn't that tabernaccle have a beginning?Does that mean it must have an end?If God wasn't alwayd God, He became God.His Goodhood had a beginning.Must it have an end?I just don't see how it can be true that anything that had a beginning must have an end.Is it official church doctrine?No, actually your body didn't have a beginning... the days had a beginning, but your body did not. It was organized... but the matter that makes it up has always existed whether in energy form or another form.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.