1 Nephi 10:7-10 and John the Baptist

[David Bokovoy]

You bet! Why not?

Because look carefully at this sentence:

It was not about “my point of view;” it was about the Book of Mormon. And I stand by that. I don’t think there is any (valid) criticism that can be made against the Book of Mormon

It was not about "my point of view," it was about tofu! And I stand by that. I don't think there is any valid criticism that can be made against how good tofu is! And dang it! As you can see, I'm a good judge at analytical thinking!

[zerinus]

It was not about "my point of view," it was about tofu! And I stand by that. I don't think there is any valid criticism that can be made against how good tofu is! And dang it! As you can see, I'm a good judge at analytical thinking!

Then you don’t understand the power of testimony, and I dare say you don’t have one. Your comparison of it with tofu tells the whole story. Tofu can neither be “true” nor “false”. It can either be well made or not well made. It can taste good or not taste good—according to your taste buds, or personal preferences. The Book of Mormon claims to be a revelation from God. It claims to be a true history of an extinct civilization. It claims to have been written on gold plates by ancient prophets, revealed by an angel, and translated into the modern vernacular by a miracle. That is either true or false. It can’t be half and half, depending on your taste buds. I happen to know for sure that that claim is true, and therefore can confidently assert my personal conviction that it cannot be successfully “challenged” by any amount of “secular scholarship”. What is your problem with that?

[volgadon]

Then you don’t understand the power of testimony, and I dare say you don’t have one.

David, you are an Epicurean and a heretic, good thing Zerinus discovered the seams in your sheepskin suit.

[Maidservant]

So who is the English-speaking post-KJV author of the Book of Mormon?

[WalkerW]

Then you don’t understand the power of testimony, and I dare say you don’t have one.

And I dare say that your self-righteousness is appalling, especially since you had to ask the following about Deutero-Isaiah:

What does that mean exactly, please enlighten me.

I happen to know for sure that that claim is true, and therefore can confidently assert my personal conviction that it cannot be successfully “challenged” by any amount of “secular scholarship”. What is your problem with that?

Accepting one's criticism as valid is not the same as endorsing the critic's view in its entirety. There is also a difference between a critic successfully "challenging" your "personal conviction" and a critic making a valid criticism.

[zerinus]

And I dare say that your self-righteousness is appalling, especially since you had to ask the following about Deutero-Isaiah:

Accepting one's criticism as valid is not the same as endorsing the critic's view in its entirety. There is also a difference between a critic successfully "challenging" your "personal conviction" and a critic making a valid criticism.

So I take it that you agree with him that "The true challenges for Mormonism come from humanists." Is that so? Would you like to explain?

[volgadon]

So I take it that you agree with him that "The true challenges for Mormonism come from humanists." Is that so? Would you like to explain?

Because it striked at the very foundation of how we conduct our lives. With fellow Christians we share more or less similar assumptions in regards to our outlook on life. A humanist will ask why do you need God or anything supernatural to lead a moral life. It can be hard coming up with the why, even when we hold it to be true.

[WalkerW]

Because it striked at the very foundation of how we conduct our lives. With fellow Christians we share more or less similar assumptions in regards to our outlook on life. A humanist will ask why do you need God or anything supernatural to lead a moral life. It can be hard coming up with the why, even when we hold it to be true.

Ditto.

The biggest slam to my Christian worldview is not an evangelical who believes in the Resurrection saying, "Well, I don't think the Book of Mormon witnesses are trustworthy..."

It is a secularist saying, "When was the last time you saw someone come back to life after three days?"

[zerinus]

Because it striked at the very foundation of how we conduct our lives. With fellow Christians we share more or less similar assumptions in regards to our outlook on life. A humanist will ask why do you need God or anything supernatural to lead a moral life. It can be hard coming up with the why, even when we hold it to be true.

Well, I never asked for your opinion because I didn't think it would be worth a lot; and I was proved right.

Ditto.

The biggest slam to my Christian worldview is not an evangelical who believes in the Resurrection saying, "Well, I don't think the Book of Mormon witnesses are trustworthy..."

It is a secularist saying, "When was the last time you saw someone come back to life after three days?"

That is now what David was talking about though. He was talking about the "Deutero-Isaiah" nonsense. He was saying that the "Deutero-Isaiah" rubbish (which is in essence a humanist) presents a greater challenge to the Book of Mormon than the kind of criticism that Rob Bowman levels against it. I don't think so. I don't think that the Deutero-Isaiah trash presents a challenge to the Book of Mormon at all.

[David Bokovoy]

Then you don’t understand the power of testimony, and I dare say you don’t have one. Your comparison of it with tofu tells the whole story. Tofu can neither be “true” nor “false”. It can either be well made or not well made. It can taste good or not taste good—according to your taste buds, or personal preferences. The Book of Mormon claims to be a revelation from God. It claims to be a true history of an extinct civilization. It claims to have been written on gold plates by ancient prophets, revealed by an angel, and translated into the modern vernacular by a miracle. That is either true or false. It can’t be half and half, depending on your taste buds. I happen to know for sure that that claim is true, and therefore can confidently assert my personal conviction that it cannot be successfully “challenged” by any amount of “secular scholarship”. What is your problem with that?

You missed the point. I just got a kick out of the fact that someone who can't even acknowledge that criticisms could be raised concerning his perspective would make that fact known and then immediately suggest that I struggle with "analytical thinking."

That was AWESOME!!!

Analytical thinking involves the skill whereby one acknowledges the criticisms an opponent could raise against one's view and then responds accordingly. I'm sorry you missed the intense irony of your post, but given what it means to think critically, you have to admit your post provided quite a bit of humor.

I appreciate that you then took the silliness even one step further by asking why you might not be a good judge for whether one possesses an analytical mind in the very same post that you basically made the following argument:

"It was not about my point of view, it was about tofu! And I stand by that. I don't think there is any valid criticism that can be made against how good tofu is! (emphasis added).

So thank you for the lesson on how to think analytically. Honestly, I loved it!

[WalkerW]

Well, I never asked for your opinion because I didn't think it would be worth a lot; and I was proved right.

How about toning down your arrogance and unnecessary hostility toward everyone?

That is now what David was talking about though.

You asked me to comment on the line itself. So, I did.

He was talking about the "Deutero-Isaiah" nonsense. He was saying that the "Deutero-Isaiah" rubbish (which is in essence a humanist) presents a greater challenge to the Book of Mormon than the kind of criticism that Rob Bowman levels against it. I don't think so. I don't think that the Deutero-Isaiah trash presents a challenge to the Book of Mormon at all.

Probably because you dismiss anything you don't like as "secular" or "humanist" and regard those who do accept it as "lacking testimony." You've dismissed it as nonsense and rubbish without being familiar with any of the biblical scholarship on the matter. Your approach offers little to understanding the Book of Mormon as an ancient text and is at the most self-serving.

[WalkerW]

By the way, zerinus, see Brant Gardner's quote in my sig line.

[volgadon]

Well, I never asked for your opinion because I didn't think it would be worth a lot; and I was proved right.

Glad to oblige. Perhaps you could do me a small favour in return. I'm interested in what the going rates are on ivory these days, and considering that you have a tower full of it, I thought I'd ask someone knowledgeable in such things.

That is now what David was talking about though. He was talking about the "Deutero-Isaiah" nonsense. He was saying that the "Deutero-Isaiah" rubbish (which is in essence a humanist) presents a greater challenge to the Book of Mormon than the kind of criticism that Rob Bowman levels against it. I don't think so. I don't think that the Deutero-Isaiah trash presents a challenge to the Book of Mormon at all.

Whether or not you accept the validity of Deutero-Isaiah, it does provide a challenge to BoM historicity. There are several acceptable solutions to it, but playing ostrich just doesn't count.

BTW, I love how you personified Deutero-Isaiah.

[David Bokovoy]

Thank you Walker and Volgadon for helping to clarify these issues. I certainly wasn't suggesting that solutions to religious and humanistic criticisms do not exist, only that we should think critically and recognize when valid challenges arise to our religious assumptions.

[Cherubbish]

Dear Rob (and/or others like you),

I'm obviously new to this board and I am unfamiliar with you and your work, but I'm assuming you are a well known critic of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So I ask you, with all sincerity, a few questions, because I honestly want to know the answers. I've asked these questions before and never get an answer. And I'm not trying to be argumentative or demeaning, seriously:

What is your (and others like you) purpose? To "save" us misguided members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? And what if you were successful with helping these misguided Latter-day Saints turn from their faith and denounce the Book of Mormon? Are you going to be there to help them along the "true" path? Are you really concerned for our welfare? And what if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was not true? What then is the true Church? If there is not one true church, and we are all just part of the body of Christ, as I've heard others claim, why do you care if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is false or not?

I really, really would like answers to these questions.

Cheers.

I honestly want to know the answers to these questions.

Thanks.

[cdowis]

Whether or not you accept the validity of Deutero-Isaiah, it does provide a challenge to BoM historicity.

Well, it is whether a dog wags the tail, or the tail wags the dog sort of thing.

Whether you like it or not, the BOM text provides a powerful challenge to the Deutero-Isaiah theory, since the Isaiah text was written within a short time after Isaiah wrote his manuscript. It is the closest we have to the original manuscript, and provides an excellent test for that theory.

I prefer that the dog (an ancient text) wags the tail (modern scholastic speculation and theory).

[zerinus]

How about toning down your arrogance and unnecessary hostility toward everyone?

"Hostility towards everyone?" I gave him the answer he deserved. It was neither arrogant nor hostile. I think the arrogance is coming from you.

You asked me to comment on the line itself. So, I did.

LOL! I asked you to comment on what the line meant. He didn’t draw a line with a ruler. He said something and meant something by it. It is obvious that you are giving irrational replies to my posts without having bothered to read the conversation that ensued it. That is pretty ignorant behaviour if you don’t mind me saying so.

Probably because you dismiss anything you don’t like as “secular” or “humanist” and regard those who do accept it as “lacking testimony.” You’ve dismissed it as nonsense and rubbish without being familiar with any of the biblical scholarship on the matter. Your approach offers little to understanding the Book of Mormon as an ancient text and is at the most self-serving.

I think that is a very arrogant statement to make. It is the Book of Mormon that utterly destroys and confines to the eternal dustbin the “Deutero-Isaiah” garbage. “Deutero-Isaiah” presents no challenge to the Book of Mormon whatsoever. A Latter-day Saint who does not recognize that is living beneath his privileges (to put it mildly). No great “scholarship” is needed to recognize that.

[zerinus]

Well, it is whether a dog wags the tail, or the tail wags the dog sort of thing.

Whether you like it or not, the BOM text provides a powerful challenge to the Deutero-Isaiah theory, . . .

Thank you, I agree. I think it presents it with more than a "powerful challenge;" it completely destroys it—if you believe in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon that is.

. . . since the Isaiah Book of Mormon text was written within a short time after Isaiah wrote his manuscript. It is the closest we have to the original manuscript, and provides an excellent test for that theory.

I prefer that the dog (an ancient text) wags the tail (modern scholastic speculation and theory).

I think you meant to say the Book of Mormon text! I agree! The only way anyone could think that the Deutero-Isaiah garbage presents a "challenge" to the Book of Mormon is if they didn't believe in originality of the Book of Mormon as true history, and a revealed and inspired text; and frankly, I don't think that these people do. Now I can understand non-LDS scholars and historians thinking that way, because they don't have a spiritual witness of the book, and one does not expect them to have one; but for someone claiming to be a Latter-day Saint to do so is an utter disgrace.

[David Bokovoy]

I think that is a very arrogant statement to make. It is the Book of Mormon that utterly destroys and confines to the eternal dustbin the “Deutero-Isaiah” garbage. “Deutero-Isaiah” presents no challenge to the Book of Mormon whatsoever. A Latter-day Saint who does not recognize that is living beneath his privileges (to put it mildly). No great “scholarship” is needed to recognize that.

There are believers who hold a spiritual witness of the BofM as scripture that believe that the Deutero-Isaiah "garbage" must be factored into a serious consideration of the Book of Mormon's claims. Some believers in the work as scripture maintain that it is an inspired 19th century book. Others believe that perhaps Joseph was inspired to add to his translation of an ancient source. Still others maintain that the book of Isaiah was produce in sections over a lengthy period of time and that the chapters quoted in the Book of Mormon were produced shortly before Lehi's family left Jerusalem.

Either way, I don't agree with your approach which amounts to closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears, while repeating over and over again, "I'm an analytical thinker! I'm an analytical thinker."

The Book of Mormon presents a serious claim and must therefore submit to human criticism. Compare your approach to the one advocated by Elder B.H. Roberts, a true analytical thinker who very much held a testimony of the BofM:

"Meantime, the fact should be recognized by the Latter-day Saints that the Book of Mormon of necessity must submit to every test, to literary criticism, as well as to every other class of criticism; for our age is above all things critical, and especially critical of sacred literature, and we may not hope that the Book of Mormon will escape closest scrutiny; neither, indeed, is it desirable that it should escape. It is given to the world as a revelation from God. It is a volume of American scripture. Men have a right to test it by the keenest criticism, and to pass severest judgment upon it, and we who accept it as a revelation from God have every reason to believe that it will endure every test; and the more thoroughly it is investigated, the greater shall be its ultimate triumph. Here it is in the world; let the world make the most of it, or the least of it. It is and will remain true. But it will not do for those who believe it [i.e. Zerinus] to suppose that they can dismiss objections to this American volume of scripture by the assumption of a lofty air of superiority, and a declaration as to what is enough for us or anybody else to know. The Book of Mormon is presented to the world for its acceptance; and the Latter-day Saints are anxious that their fellow men should believe it. If objections are made to it, to the manner of its translation, with the rest, these objections should be patiently investigated, and the most reasonable explanations possible, given." Improvement Era, 435-436.

[zerinus]

There are believers who hold a spiritual witness of the BofM as scripture that believe that the Deutero-Isaiah "garbage" must be factored into a serious consideration of the Book of Mormon's claims. Some believers in the work as scripture maintain that it is an inspired 19th century book. Others believe that perhaps Joseph was inspired to add to his translation of an ancient source. Still others maintain that the book of Isaiah was produce in sections over a lengthy period of time and that the chapters quoted in the Book of Mormon were produced shortly before Lehi's family left Jerusalem.

Either way, I don't agree with your approach which amounts to closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears, while repeating over and over again, "I'm an analytical thinker! I'm an analytical thinker."

The Book of Mormon presents a serious claim and must therefore submit to human criticism. Compare your approach to the one advocated by Elder B.H. Roberts, a true analytical thinker who very much held a testimony of the BofM:

"Meantime, the fact should be recognized by the Latter-day Saints that the Book of Mormon of necessity must submit to every test, to literary criticism, as well as to every other class of criticism; for our age is above all things critical, and especially critical of sacred literature, and we may not hope that the Book of Mormon will escape closest scrutiny; neither, indeed, is it desirable that it should escape. It is given to the world as a revelation from God. It is a volume of American scripture. Men have a right to test it by the keenest criticism, and to pass severest judgment upon it, and we who accept it as a revelation from God have every reason to believe that it will endure every test; and the more thoroughly it is investigated, the greater shall be its ultimate triumph. Here it is in the world; let the world make the most of it, or the least of it. It is and will remain true. But it will not do for those who believe [i.e. Zerinius] it to suppose that they can dismiss objections to this American volume of scripture by the assumption of a lofty air of superiority, and a declaration as to what is enough for us or anybody else to know. The Book of Mormon is presented to the world for its acceptance; and the Latter-day Saints are anxious that their fellow men should believe it. If objections are made to it, to the manner of its translation, with the rest, these objections should be patiently investigated, and the most reasonable explanations possible, given." Improvement Era, 435-436.

I have nothing against putting the Book of Mormon through any kind of a test; what I am against is when a Mormon "scholar" accepts an academic theory that undermines the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as a revealed and true history that it claims to be, and presents that idea as an acceptable proposition for Latter-day Saints. And why am I against that? Because I know that it is false, and I am on the side of the truth. Deutero-Isaiah and the Book of Mormon cannot both be true. If one of them is true, the other one must be false. And I happen to know that the Book of Mormon is true. That puts paid to the Deutero-Isaiah theory.

[USU78]

I have nothing against putting the Book of Mormon through any kind of a test; what I am against is when a Mormon "scholar" accepts an academic theory that undermines the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as a revealed and true history that it claims to be, and presents that idea as an acceptable proposition for Latter-day Saints. And why am I against that? Because I know that it is false, and I am on the side of the truth. Deutero-Isaiah and the Book of Mormon cannot both be true. If one of them is true, the other one must be false. And I happen to know that the Book of Mormon is true. That puts paid to the Deutero-Isaiah theory.

I don't know why one must take such an extreme and immovable position. My own view is that the BoM provides a control on what portions of what we now have as Isaiah predate the Captivity. Everything else, and I do mean everything, is up for grabs as to date of first production. Just because something is presently grouped with materials which have been arbitrarily titled "Second Isaiah" doesn't mean that we must accept that it shares authorship or date of production with the remaining Second Isaiah elements.

So put me in the group David says thinks the preserved Second Isaiah elements in 2 Nephi, etc., were composed shortly before the Captivity. What harm does such a position do to the BoM's authenticity claims, zerinus? Such a position allows the possibility that at least 2 and possibly more people were involved in producing the documents later synthesized into Isaiah, but takes no firm position on the subject.

Why should we as Mormons object to the possibility that many authors may have been involved in producing any book? Plainly the Bible has many authors, and, probably, many editors involved over a long time. Same with the Book of Mormon itself. Mormon's fingerprints and, to a lesser extent, Moroni's, are all over every page. The difference between the BoM and Isaiah, however, is that we know exactly who the great compiler and redactor and editor was for the BoM. There is no such transparency with the Bible or specifically Isaiah, however.

Remember: Not that long ago GBH allowed the possibility that Genesis was another book that went through a similar process to the BoM, where later compilers, redactors and editors synthesized then existing texts to produce what we now love so much. Are any of us likelier to be clear on such issues than he?

[Vance]

. . . My own view is that the BoM provides a control on what portions of what we now have as Isaiah predate the Captivity. Everything else, and I do mean everything, is up for grabs as to date of first production. Just because something is presently grouped with materials which have been arbitrarily titled "Second Isaiah" doesn't mean that we must accept that it shares authorship or date of production with the remaining Second Isaiah elements.

So put me in the group David says thinks the preserved Second Isaiah elements in 2 Nephi, etc., were composed shortly before the Captivity.

Ditto.

[Mortal Man]

Well, it is whether a dog wags the tail, or the tail wags the dog sort of thing.

Whether you like it or not, the BOM text provides a powerful challenge to the Deutero-Isaiah theory, since the Isaiah text was written within a short time after Isaiah wrote his manuscript. It is the closest we have to the original manuscript, and provides an excellent test for that theory.

I prefer that the dog (an ancient text) wags the tail (modern scholastic speculation and theory).

So you claim that 2 Nephi 27 is the closest we have to the original manuscript of Isaiah 29? (I wish they would fix the question mark bug.)

I applaud you for being the only apologist to actually stand up for church doctrine on this issue.

I invite you to defend this claim; you'd be the first to do so. I've invited many before but all have declined.

Fame and glory await.

[WalkerW]

"Hostility towards everyone?"

Allow me to clarify: hostility towards everyone who disagrees with you.

I gave him the answer he deserved.

But of course. Surely you can do no wrong.

It was neither arrogant nor hostile.

You told him that he didn't have a testimony because he doesn't view it the way you do. That isn't hostile or arrogant?

I think the arrogance is coming from you.

I'm sure that is it...

LOL! I asked you to comment on what the line meant.

Actually, what you said was,

"So I take it that you agree with him that "The true challenges for Mormonism come from humanists." Is that so? Would you like to explain?"

I agree with that. And I explained why.

He didn’t draw a line with a ruler. He said something and meant something by it.

Considering David thanked both Volgadon and I for helping him clarify, I'm pretty sure I got the gist of what he meant.

It is obvious that you are giving irrational replies to my posts without having bothered to read the conversation that ensued it. That is pretty ignorant behaviour if you don’t mind me saying so.

See above.

I think that is a very arrogant statement to make.

Do you not label those who disagree with you "secularists" and "humanists" who "lack testimony?"

It is the Book of Mormon that utterly destroys and confines to the eternal dustbin the “Deutero-Isaiah” garbage.

Not necessarily. David has offered some pretty good theories on how Deutero-Isaiah can still work in a Book of Mormon context.

“Deutero-Isaiah” presents no challenge to the Book of Mormon whatsoever.

As it relates to critical biblical scholarship, it does. Or it at least challenges certain paradigms regarding Book of Mormon. That might be a better way of putting it.

A Latter-day Saint who does not recognize that is living beneath his privileges (to put it mildly).

How exactly? I know you are all about moral self-aggrandizement, but you have yet to make a coherent argument for your position.

No great “scholarship” is needed to recognize that.

[WalkerW]

"Meantime, the fact should be recognized by the Latter-day Saints that the Book of Mormon of necessity must submit to every test, to literary criticism, as well as to every other class of criticism; for our age is above all things critical, and especially critical of sacred literature, and we may not hope that the Book of Mormon will escape closest scrutiny; neither, indeed, is it desirable that it should escape. It is given to the world as a revelation from God. It is a volume of American scripture. Men have a right to test it by the keenest criticism, and to pass severest judgment upon it, and we who accept it as a revelation from God have every reason to believe that it will endure every test; and the more thoroughly it is investigated, the greater shall be its ultimate triumph. Here it is in the world; let the world make the most of it, or the least of it. It is and will remain true. But it will not do for those who believe it [i.e. Zerinus] to suppose that they can dismiss objections to this American volume of scripture by the assumption of a lofty air of superiority, and a declaration as to what is enough for us or anybody else to know. The Book of Mormon is presented to the world for its acceptance; and the Latter-day Saints are anxious that their fellow men should believe it. If objections are made to it, to the manner of its translation, with the rest, these objections should be patiently investigated, and the most reasonable explanations possible, given." Improvement Era, 435-436.