Rob Bowman Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 zerinus,You wrote:That needs to be demonstrated. You have not provided any documentary evidence to make a case for that claim.Which claim, exactly, do you say I need to demonstrate with documentary evidence?
zerinus Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 Which claim, exactly, do you say I need to demonstrate with documentary evidence?This claim:Read the whole post again. It is not just the use of English idioms in the Book of Mormon. It is the fact that the whole sermon in Alma 5 is a nineteenth-century composition, written in the genre of revivalist exhortations that Joseph Smith himself learned to do among the Methodists, . . .
Rob Bowman Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 zerinus,I cited a number of specific elements that were common to revivalist sermons or exhortations and that are found in the sermon in Alma 5. I also cited, in a separate post, Grant Palmer's book, which contains a whole chapter documenting the revivalist cultural context of much of the Book of Mormon.
zerinus Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) zerinus,I cited a number of specific elements that were common to revivalist sermons or exhortations and that are found in the sermon in Alma 5. I also cited, in a separate post, Grant Palmer's book, which contains a whole chapter documenting the revivalist cultural context of much of the Book of Mormon.I cannot debate with a book I am afraid; and you haven't demonstrated that "specific elements that were common to revivalist sermons or exhortations . . . are found in the sermon in Alma 5". And in any case, "specific elements" is meaningless without proper theological and contextual evidence. I am sure if I tried hard enough I could fine "specific elements" of Buddhism in the Book of Mormon. That is hardly an argument that the Book of Mormon is derived form Buddhism. The Book of Mormon claims descent from a Judo-Christian literary and theological tradition, therefore it is hardly surprising that common elements between it and another document originating from the same tradition should be found. Edited February 21, 2012 by zerinus
Gervin Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 The Book of Mormon claims descent from a Judo-Christian literary and theological tradition, therefore it is hardly surprising that common elements between it and another document originating from the same tradition should be found.What's the best explanation for the common elements between Alma 5:52 “...the ax is laid at the root of the tree; therefore every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be hewn down and cast into the fire....”Matt. 3:10: “the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."?
volgadon Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 What's the best explanation for the common elements betweenAlma 5:52 “...the ax is laid at the root of the tree; therefore every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be hewn down and cast into the fire....”Matt. 3:10: “the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."?For the exact phraing, sure. For the concept? Try Isaiah and Deuteronomy.
zerinus Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) What's the best explanation for the common elements betweenAlma 5:52 “...the ax is laid at the root of the tree; therefore every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be hewn down and cast into the fire....”Matt. 3:10: “the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."?Whatever the explanation is, it does not provide evidence for the "revivalist" influence. Edited February 21, 2012 by zerinus
Gervin Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Since you aren't surprised by the common elements between these two verses I asked if you could provide insight on their similarities.
Nevo Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) Additional examples of nineteenth-century revivalist rhetoric in the Book of Mormon can be found in Mark D. Thomas, "Revival Language in the Book of Mormon," Sunstone (May/June 1983): 19-25; Mark D. Thomas, Digging in Cumorah: Reclaiming Book of Mormon Narratives (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1999); and Dan Vogel, "Anti-Universalist Rhetoric in the Book of Mormon," in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, ed. Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 21-52.For example, the catchphrase "sing [the song of] redeeming love" in Alma 5 is well attested in Joseph's environment. Thomas notes that Methodists had been using the phrase "redeeming love" since at least 1780. And the expression "sing the song of redeeming love" to refer to conversion appears specifically in Joshua Bradley's, Accounts of Religious Revivals in Many Parts of the United States from 1815 to 1818 (Albany, NY: 1819): "An awakening began on the first of December 1816 and within the short period of two months not less than two hundred were brought to sing the song of redeeming love" (152; compare Alma 5:26). Other catchphrases, such as "demands of justice" and "probationary state"/"state of probation" were ubiquitous in Joseph Smith's environment, though they are nowhere found in the Bible. The idea that this life is a state of probation figured in many anti-Universalist sermons as a corrective to Universalist claims that one might still repent after death. John Cleaveland declared in 1776, for example, that “the time of life here on earth is our probation-time for eternity.” Cyrus Mann’s 1818 pamphlet, The Future Punishment of the Wicked Certain and Endless, asserted that “throughout the whole bible, the present is represented as our only state of probation.” A sermon by Timothy Merritt published in the New York Methodist Magazine in 1823 lays particular emphasis on this idea: "The present is a probationary state for the kingdom of heaven. The future is a state of retribution . . none can be saved in the future state who are not prepared for the kingdom of heaven in this. . . . Every thing which we can conceive necessary to constitute a state of probation, belongs to man’s state in the world. Here life and death are set before him . . . The gospel is preached to him, and the Holy Spirit helpeth his infirmities. He is told that this state will soon end, and that his future state will be determined by the deeds done in this. These things indicate a state of probation as clearly as any thing can." (Timothy Merritt, "A Discourse on Future Punishment," Methodist Magazine 6 [september 1823]: 322; compare Alma 12:24; 42:4).In the same sermon, Merritt also argued that “if mankind are under the law of God, there must, in the very nature of things, be a penalty for the breach of the law . . . if we incur the penalty of the law by transgression, that penalty must be executed either on us or on our substitute. If on us, then no favor is shown us; but if on our substitute, the way is opened, and mercy may be extended to us.” Christ’s suffering for us, in our stead, “[gave] exercise to that mercy and grace which otherwise would have been prevented by the unsatisfied demands of the law upon us.” Thus, “the atonement was not made to render God merciful to us, but to satisfy the claims which his justice had against us as transgressors, and open the way by which he might extend mercy to us consistently with his character as Lawgiver and Judge” (Methodist Magazine 6 [July 1823]: 244-45; compare Alma 34:16; 42:15).The idea that God’s mercy cannot destroy his justice or he would cease to be God (Alma 42:13, 22, 25) also had echoes in Joseph's environment. An article appearing in the Utica Christian Magazine in 1813, for example, argued that God’s justice is essential to his nature; therefore, "God can no more disregard his justice in his conduct toward his creatures, than he can deny his own name, or destroy his moral perfection. If God had saved sinners from threatened and deserved punishment without an atonement, he would have sacrificed his justice, and have ruined his character and government." Or, as Cyrus Mann put it, “future punishment . . . is as certain to the finally impenitent, as that God is possessed of justice, or as certain as the existence of God." Josiah Priest argued along similar lines in 1826: "If God’s attributes are essential to his nature, and if God is just, [can] a being necessarily just, suspend his justice? . . . If mercy can overcome justice, what is become of Omnipotence by which justice is supported? And if it cannot, how can man be rescued from impending woe without an atonement" (Josiah Priest, The Wonders of Nature and Providence Displayed [Albany, NY: 1825], 133-35).Ultimately, I agree with Philip Barlow’s assessment that "whatever one makes of the complex and controversial Book of Mormon, the evidence suggests Joseph Smith’s theological preconceptions and cultural surroundings influenced its production" (Philip L. Barlow, Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-day Saints in American Religion [New York: Oxford University Press, 1991], 37). Edited February 21, 2012 by Nevo 2
why me Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Ultimately, I agree with Philip Barlow’s assessment that "whatever one makes of the complex and controversial Book of Mormon, the evidence suggests Joseph Smith’s theological preconceptions and cultural surroundings influenced its production" (Philip L. Barlow, Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-day Saints in American Religion [New York: Oxford University Press, 1991], 37).And yet, could he have written the book of mormon? And we need to remember the age of JS at the time that he was involved in the book of mormon. He was a young man and not a seasoned citizen. All this implies that he was very intuned with his religious environment and political environment and he was extremely well read. Certainly not the scurrvy moneydigger that the critics make him out to be.
zerinus Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Since you aren't surprised by the common elements between these two verses I asked if you could provide insight on their similarities.Before offering any insights into their similarities, we need first to understand that there are many such "similarities" throughout the Book of Mormon, both pertaining to the Old Testament as well as the New, including anachronistic ones. So the "revivalist" connection simply does not provide the answer to that question. My own explanation is that both are inspired by the Holy Ghost. There is a verse in the Book of Mormon that says, "for the Spirit is the same, yesterday, today, and forever" (2 Nephi 2:4). I believe that the authors of both books (Bible and the Book of Mormon) were inspired by the Holy Ghost, therefore they expressed the same inspired concepts in the same inspired language. I am sure that would not be a satisfactory explanation to the secular mentality of the natural mind; but from my point of view it is perfectly satisfactory. If you studied the Book of Mormon very carefully, and made special note of those "similarities," you would be surprised at the prevalence of them in the book, and the skill and sophistication with which they are woven into a very complex narrative all of which is composed in the same linguistic and literary style and mode of expression. I believe that would have been not only beyond the capability of Joseph Smith to produce (with his head buried in a hat, dictating at the phenomenal rate of on average ten pages a day, without rereading or editing of the text); but it would have been beyond the capability of the most learned and gifted men on earth to produce. The Book of Mormon is either what it claims to be, or it is inexplicable.
zerinus Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Additional examples of nineteenth-century revivalist rhetoric in the Book of Mormon can be found in Mark D. Thomas, "Revival Language in the Book of Mormon," Sunstone (May/June 1983): 19-25; Mark D. Thomas, Digging in Cumorah: Reclaiming Book of Mormon Narratives (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1999); and Dan Vogel, "Anti-Universalist Rhetoric in the Book of Mormon," in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, ed. Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 21-52.<snip>Thank you for providing the references and the quotes. The problem that I see with these is that they take a very narrow, microscopic look at a small segment of the Book of Mormon, and ignore the rest of the context of the book. The Book of Mormon should be treated as an organic whole. Which “revivalist language” did this passage come from:2 Nephi 1:13 O that ye would awake; awake from a deep sleep, yea, even from the sleep of hell, and shake off the awful chains by which ye are bound, which are the chains which bind the children of men, that they are carried away captive down to the eternal gulf of misery and woe.14 Awake! and arise from the dust, and hear the words of a trembling parent, whose limbs ye must soon lay down in the cold and silent grave, from whence no traveler can return; a few more days and I go the way of all the earth.15 But behold, the Lord hath redeemed my soul from hell; I have beheld his glory, and I am encircled about eternally in the arms of his love.Or this:2 Nephi 4:20 My God hath been my support; he hath led me through mine afflictions in the wilderness; and he hath preserved me upon the waters of the great deep.21 He hath filled me with his love, even unto the consuming of my flesh.22 He hath confounded mine enemies, unto the causing of them to quake before me.23 Behold, he hath heard my cry by day, and he hath given me knowledge by visions in the night-time.24 And by day have I waxed bold in mighty prayer before him; yea, my voice have I sent up on high; and angels came down and ministered unto me.25 And upon the wings of his Spirit hath my body been carried away upon exceedingly high mountains. And mine eyes have beheld great things, yea, even too great for man; therefore I was bidden that I should not write them.Or this:Mosiah 13:5 Now it came to pass after Abinadi had spoken these words that the people of king Noah durst not lay their hands on him, for the Spirit of the Lord was upon him; and his face shone with exceeding luster, even as Moses' did while in the mount of Sinai, while speaking with the Lord.6 And he spake with power and authority from God; and he continued his words, saying:7 Ye see that ye have not power to slay me, therefore I finish my message. Yea, and I perceive that it cuts you to your hearts because I tell you the truth concerning your iniquities.8 Yea, and my words fill you with wonder and amazement, and with anger.9 But I finish my message; and then it matters not whither I go, if it so be that I am saved.10 But this much I tell you, what you do with me, after this, shall be as a type and a shadow of things which are to come.11 And now I read unto you the remainder of the commandments of God, for I perceive that they are not written in your hearts; I perceive that ye have studied and taught iniquity the most part of your lives.Or this:3 Nephi 17:14 And it came to pass that when they had knelt upon the ground, Jesus groaned within himself, and said: Father, I am troubled because of the wickedness of the people of the house of Israel.15 And when he had said these words, he himself also knelt upon the earth; and behold he prayed unto the Father, and the things which he prayed cannot be written, and the multitude did bear record who heard him.16 And after this manner do they bear record: The eye hath never seen, neither hath the ear heard, before, so great and marvelous things as we saw and heard Jesus speak unto the Father;17 And no tongue can speak, neither can there be written by any man, neither can the hearts of men conceive so great and marvelous things as we both saw and heard Jesus speak; and no one can conceive of the joy which filled our souls at the time we heard him pray for us unto the Father.18 And it came to pass that when Jesus had made an end of praying unto the Father, he arose; but so great was the joy of the multitude that they were overcome.19 And it came to pass that Jesus spake unto them, and bade them arise.20 And they arose from the earth, and he said unto them: Blessed are ye because of your faith. And now behold, my joy is full.21 And when he had said these words, he wept, and the multitude bare record of it, and he took their little children, one by one, and blessed them, and prayed unto the Father for them.22 And when he had done this he wept again;23 And he spake unto the multitude, and said unto them: Behold your little ones.24 And as they looked to behold they cast their eyes towards heaven, and they saw the heavens open, and they saw angels descending out of heaven as it were in the midst of fire; and they came down and encircled those little ones about, and they were encircled about with fire; and the angels did minister unto them.25 And the multitude did see and hear and bear record; and they know that their record is true for they all of them did see and hear, every man for himself; and they were in number about two thousand and five hundred souls; and they did consist of men, women, and children.Or this:Ether 3:9 And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so ye could not have seen my finger. Sawest thou more than this?10 And he answered: Nay; Lord, show thyself unto me.11 And the Lord said unto him: Believest thou the words which I shall speak?12 And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie.13 And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you.14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.Or the whole of the Book of Mormon in fact. You are talking about a 500 page book that is full of this kind of stuff. To pick on a couple of words and phrases here and there and call the book influenced by “revivalist” language of the time, to the complete disregard of the context of the rest of the book, is not just poor scholarship; it is dishonest. As I said in another post, if you were determined to look for it, I am sure you could find links to Buddhism and Baha’ism in the Book of Mormon too. That is not my idea of good scholarship.
robuchan Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 That's a rather glib conclusion. I don't think the evidence supports it.The mere fact that something is written in a book is a lot less than sufficient evidence that Joseph, whom all agree was not much of a reader, had come across it; much less that it was on everyone's lips.Regards,PahoranSo we take two alternatives.1. Joseph got the phrase from books of his day, which included the phrase at least 700 times.2. Ancient American prophets, who have no evidence of existence outside the Book of Mormon text, used the language Reformed Egyptian to record a phrase on gold plates. Joseph Smith received those plates, hid them in the woods, translated them using a peepstone and top hat, recorded the phrase in English. One of the words in the phrase has an alternate definition which is found in the Old Testament.And apologists see it as a hit on an Hebraism?
robuchan Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Before offering any insights into their similarities, we need first to understand that there are many such "similarities" throughout the Book of Mormon, both pertaining to the Old Testament as well as the New, including anachronistic ones. So the "revivalist" connection simply does not provide the answer to that question. My own explanation is that both are inspired by the Holy Ghost. There is a verse in the Book of Mormon that says, "for the Spirit is the same, yesterday, today, and forever" (2 Nephi 2:4). I believe that the authors of both books (Bible and the Book of Mormon) were inspired by the Holy Ghost, therefore they expressed the same inspired concepts in the same inspired language. I am sure that would not be a satisfactory explanation to the secular mentality of the natural mind; but from my point of view it is perfectly satisfactory. If you studied the Book of Mormon very carefully, and made special note of those "similarities," you would be surprised at the prevalence of them in the book, and the skill and sophistication with which they are woven into a very complex narrative all of which is composed in the same linguistic and literary style and mode of expression. I believe that would have been not only beyond the capability of Joseph Smith to produce (with his head buried in a hat, dictating at the phenomenal rate of on average ten pages a day, without rereading or editing of the text); but it would have been beyond the capability of the most learned and gifted men on earth to produce. The Book of Mormon is either what it claims to be, or it is inexplicable.Do you ever wonder why when it comes to anachronistic teachings, BOM prophets only copied the New Testament? I wonder why there are no similarities with the thousands of pages of original text modern prophets have given us, through writings or sermons? Why no duplication of Lorenzo Snow's couplet? Why no "no success outside the home can make up for failure inside the home?" Why no "never let a problem to be solved become more important than a person to be loved."
wenglund Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 CFR that speeches of the same genre were delivered by "such noted OT prophets." Quotations from sources known to us only from Joseph Smith's nineteenth-century "translation" of the OT are not acceptable for this CFR, since the use of such quotations would clearly beg the question.My references are from modern translations, and while they suffice in support of my own beliefs, I understand they beg the question with you, and so to each their own.One need not and typically does not mention the source to which one is alluding when one alludes. Your objection is without merit.In those cases where one does not explicitly mention the source being alluded to, one needs to provide implicit context that makes clear what is being alluded to. You failed in both regards, and so my objection stands.I disagree. We are now talking about much more than turns of phrase or individual idioms. How do you account for the following parallel?I account for multiple turns of phrases and idioms in the same way that I account for the same individually.Alma does not claim to be predicting by divine inspiration what the future John the Baptist would say. He is simply making the same statement that we find John the Baptist recorded in Matthew's Gospel as having made, as translated in the KJV, nearly verbatim. The only verbal differences are extremely minor: at instead of unto, tree instead of trees, that instead of which, and shall be instead of is. For all practical purposes Alma's statement is verbally the same as the 27-word statement found in Matthew 3:10. This cannot be dismissed as mere use of modern English idiom.I am not dismissing it. I am questioning whether multiple idiomatic similarities in select and scattered passages between the English translation of the Book of Mormon and the English translation of the Bible, are sufficient to determine the origins of the Book of Mormon. You seem to accept this secular approach and its weak results. I don't--particularly since it may be used, and has been used by secularists, to call into question the origins of elements of the Holy Bible. You must be pleased to be validating the methodology and findings of movements like the Jesus Seminar.If my argument was that absolutely everything in Alma 5 was exactly what one would find nineteenth-century revivalists commonly saying, you would have a legitimate objection, at least to my argument. But remember, I didn't say this. I pointed out that the revivalist sermon is adapted to the first-century BC context into which the Book of Mormon places Alma. If a revivalist-type sermon were to be placed in such a context we would expect some discontinuities with those sermons in a nineteenth-century Christian revivalist context. That is why, for example, the wording of Matthew 3:10 is changed from "is" to "shall be" (the most significant verbal variation in the allusion). It is why the revivalist is a high priest. Whatever differences there might have been between the concept of revelation found in Alma 5 and the views of nineteenth-century revivalists, such differences don't disprove a nineteenth-century origin of the sermon. At most it would prove that the author of the sermon was not in all respects of the same beliefs or ways of thinking as most other people in that revivalist tradition. But as a matter of fact, belief in modern revelation was quite popular in Joseph Smith's culture. Various sects had already popped up in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries claiming to be led by a prophet. Revivalists commonly claimed that the Spirit was especially active in their meetings and through the preaching that was done there.The problem here is that if your argument lives by the sword (idiomatic commonalities), you may die by the sword (idiomatic dis-similarities). Remember, you aren't just attempting to demonstrate the source for phrases in the English translation of the Book of Mormon, but the origins of the Book of Mormon, itself. The latter requires you to account for elements of the passages in question that don't fit your 19th century revivalist exhortations theory--and I am not talking here about minor tenses.Methodologically, you cannot invalidate the evidence for a nineteenth-century origin of the Book of Mormon by claiming that the Book of Mormon has some elements that would have been unusual for that period. People are constantly coming up with new ideas, new ways of saying something, new arguments, and so forth. But most of what any given person says will reflect the particular historical context in which they are situated, and even their "new ideas" have some continuity with what came before them and are articulated in ways that reflect that present culture. Such is the case with the Book of Mormon and its early nineteenth-century context.See above.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Nevo Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) All this implies that he was very intuned with his religious environment and political environment and he was extremely well read. Certainly not the scurrvy moneydigger that the critics make him out to be.Joseph was a deeply religious young man and was well acquainted with scriptures and preaching. According to his 1832 history, his religious awakening began around age 12: "At about the age of twelve years my mind become seriously imprest with regard to the all importent concerns for the wellfare of my immortal Soul which led me to searching the scriptures believeing as I was taught, that they contained the word of God thus applying myself to them and my intimate acquaintance with those different denominations led me to marvel exce[e]dingly for I discovered that [they did not] adorn their profession by a holy walk and Godly conversation agreeable to what I found contained in that sacred depository this was a grief to my Soul..."In his official history he reported that, although he did not join any particular denomination, "I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit." In time, he became partial to the Methodists. Palmyra neighbor Orsamus Turner remembered that "after catching a spark of Methodism in the camp-meeting, away down in the woods, on the Vienna road, [Joseph] was a very passable exhorter in evening meetings." (Methodist exhorters typically led prayers and exhorted people to repentance.) Shortly after his first vision, Joseph recorded that he "happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers... and, [was] conversing with him on the subject of religion." Presumably this wasn't the first time.I don't think Joseph Smith was particularly "well read" as a teenager, but he had an active, searching intellect and evidently paid close attention to the discussions taking place around him (he also participated in a debate club, you will recall). Edited February 21, 2012 by Nevo
Nevo Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Which “revivalist language” did this passage come from:2 Nephi 1:13 O that ye would awake; awake from a deep sleep, yea, even from the sleep of hell, and shake off the awful chains by which ye are bound, which are the chains which bind the children of men, that they are carried away captive down to the eternal gulf of misery and woe.14 Awake! and arise from the dust, and hear the words of a trembling parent, whose limbs ye must soon lay down in the cold and silent grave, from whence no traveler can return; a few more days and I go the way of all the earth.15 But behold, the Lord hath redeemed my soul from hell; I have beheld his glory, and I am encircled about eternally in the arms of his love.I assume you're being serious. As it happens, this passage is teeming with stock phrases and ideas employed by revivalist preachers: e.g., "cold and silent grave," "awful chains," "gulf of misery and woe," "encircled about eternally in the arms of his love."Here are just a few variations on the latter expression in Google Books (all of the examples date between 1775 and 1830):"God bless you, and encircle you in the arms of his everlasting love""I am encircled in the arms of love and mercy, I long to be at home""Everlasting arms of love have encircled me.""these everlasting arms encircle us eternally""She was encircled in the arms of her loving Saviour""God the Father, and Son, came down as at the beginning, encircled me in the arms of redeeming love"
why me Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 I don't think Joseph Smith was particularly "well read" as a teenager, but he had an active, searching intellect and evidently paid close attention to the discussions taking place around him (he also participated in a debate club, you will recall).As you know Nevo, it is one thing to attend church and read the bible. It is quite another to do active research for a book. It is also quite another thing to express opinions about various aspects of religion. This does not mean that his opinions were well respected. The point is simple: did he have time to write the book of mormon and if so, when did he find the time and hide the paper involved in the writing. It is quite an illogical leap to assume that someone who reads the bible, expresses religious opinions can write a book that not only deals with religious questions but also with politics, forms of government and history.
Rob Bowman Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Wade,In response to my CFR for your statement that OT prophets gave sermons identical in genre and message to nineteenth-century revivalist sermons, you wrote:My references are from modern translations, and while they suffice in support of my own beliefs, I understand they beg the question with you, and so to each their own.Okay. Please provide citations showing that Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and Moses preached such revivalist sermons. I will allow you to use Joseph Smith's supposed modern translations.Regarding the numerous allusions to the New Testament in Alma 5, you wrote:In those cases where one does not explicitly mention the source being alluded to, one needs to provide implicit context that makes clear what is being alluded to. You failed in both regards, and so my objection stands.Who needs to provide this "implicit context"? What do you mean by that term? Can you give me an example?Regarding the essentially verbatim quotation of a 27-word text from Matthew 3:10 KJV in Alma 5, you wrote:I account for multiple turns of phrases and idioms in the same way that I account for the same individually.... I am not dismissing it. I am questioning whether multiple idiomatic similarities in select and scattered passages between the English translation of the Book of Mormon and the English translation of the Bible, are sufficient to determine the origins of the Book of Mormon. You seem to accept this secular approach and its weak results. I don't--particularly since it may be used, and has been used by secularists, to call into question the origins of elements of the Holy Bible. You must be pleased to be validating the methodology and findings of movements like the Jesus Seminar.I have no idea what you're talking about. Please provide an example of how the same reasoning that I use has been used to question the origins of material in the Bible.You wrote:The problem here is that if your argument lives by the sword (idiomatic commonalities), you may die by the sword (idiomatic dis-similarities).This doesn't follow at all. Idiomatic dissimilarities in and of themselves prove nothing except that each speaker or writer has some turns of phrase or ways of speaking that are distinctively his. Perhaps you'd like to give me an example of the kind of "idiomatic dis-similarities" that you think disprove the nineteenth-century origin of the Book of Mormon.Remember, you aren't just attempting to demonstrate the source for phrases in the English translation of the Book of Mormon, but the origins of the Book of Mormon, itself. The latter requires you to account for elements of the passages in question that don't fit your 19th century revivalist exhortations theory--and I am not talking here about minor tenses.I have already explained why there is no problem here. Joseph Smith adapted the revivalist extemporaneous speech genre to fit the context of his narrative in the Book of Mormon. The sermon also reflects some of Joseph's own views that were out of the mainstream of Methodist revivalism. Accounting for these differences is no problem at all.
why me Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 I assume you're being serious. As it happens, this passage is teeming with stock phrases and ideas employed by revivalist preachers: e.g., "cold and silent grave," "awful chains," "gulf of misery and woe," "encircled about eternally in the arms of his love."Here are just a few variations on the latter expression in Google Books (all of the examples date between 1775 and 1830):"God bless you, and encircle you in the arms of his everlasting love""I am encircled in the arms of love and mercy, I long to be at home""Everlasting arms of love have encircled me.""these everlasting arms encircle us eternally""She was encircled in the arms of her loving Saviour""God the Father, and Son, came down as at the beginning, encircled me in the arms of redeeming love"I would think that such a description has been used throughout time to describe god's love. How else would such a phrase be used? Arms encircle someone in love. Such is a hug and a feeling of warmth. Nothing special there at all.
Nevo Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 As you know Nevo, it is one thing to attend church and read the bible. It is quite another to do active research for a book.I'm not proposing that Joseph Smith did "active research for a book." What I am suggesting is that when revelation came, Joseph expressed that revelation using concepts and phraseology present in his environment—drawn in large part from the KJV Bible and revivalist preaching.I would think that such a description has been used throughout time to describe god's love. How else would such a phrase be used? Arms encircle someone in love. Such is a hug and a feeling of warmth. Nothing special there at all.If this idea of experiencing God's love as a divine embrace is "nothing special," then you should have no trouble coming up with equally strong biblical parallels. I can't think of any.
why me Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 If this idea of experiencing God's love as a divine embrace is "nothing special," then you should have no trouble coming up with equally strong biblical parallels. I can't think of any.I was referring to the expression that is found in the book of mormon and its similiar expression during Joseph's time. The parallels are somewhat meaningless if one is implying that Joseph could have wrote the book because of such similiarities that existed during his time. That expression of god encircling one with love would not be that unusual of a phrase of expressing the way that one can feel god's love.
Rob Bowman Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 why me,You wrote:And yet, could he have written the book of mormon?People have done some amazing things that by all common expectations were far beyond what their upbringing, training, or education prepared them to do. The question that needs to be asked is not whether Joseph Smith could have written the Book of Mormon but whether the evidence shows that he, or someone close to him, did so. I'm afraid the answer to that question is Yes. And if Joseph or someone close to him (I am inclined to give Joseph the credit) wrote it, then of course he could have done so.
zerinus Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 I assume you're being serious. As it happens, this passage is teeming with stock phrases and ideas employed by revivalist preachers: e.g., "cold and silent grave," "awful chains," "gulf of misery and woe," "encircled about eternally in the arms of his love."Here are just a few variations on the latter expression in Google Books (all of the examples date between 1775 and 1830):"God bless you, and encircle you in the arms of his everlasting love""I am encircled in the arms of love and mercy, I long to be at home""Everlasting arms of love have encircled me.""these everlasting arms encircle us eternally""She was encircled in the arms of her loving Saviour""God the Father, and Son, came down as at the beginning, encircled me in the arms of redeeming love"What you do not realize is that by so doing you are persisting in perusing a critical strategy that I demonstrated in post #37 to be a flawed strategy from the point of view of making a critical analysis of the Book of Mormon. That strategy is flawed from the start for the reasons explained. Joseph also uses words found in the Oxford English Dictionary to translate the Book of Mormon with, therefore that proves that his book was the product of the English culture and language of his time.
Rob Bowman Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 zerinus,You wrote:Thank you for providing the references and the quotes. The problem that I see with these is that they take a very narrow, microscopic look at a small segment of the Book of Mormon, and ignore the rest of the context of the book. The Book of Mormon should be treated as an organic whole. Which “revivalist language” did this passage come from....Or the whole of the Book of Mormon in fact. You are talking about a 500 page book that is full of this kind of stuff. To pick on a couple of words and phrases here and there and call the book influenced by “revivalist” language of the time, to the complete disregard of the context of the rest of the book, is not just poor scholarship; it is dishonest. As I said in another post, if you were determined to look for it, I am sure you could find links to Buddhism and Baha’ism in the Book of Mormon too. That is not my idea of good scholarship.The Book of Mormon first makes its appearance in recorded history in upstate New York in the late 1820s, in the midst of the Second Great Awakening. It would be poor scholarship not to consider that immediate context when seeking to determine the most likely origin of the Book of Mormon! Doing so is not at all like ransacking Buddhist or Baha'i texts looking for parallels to the Book of Mormon. What is very much like that is ransacking ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Canaanite texts looking for parallels to the Book of Mormon.
Recommended Posts