New Testament And Book Of Mormon Parallels (Mark 16:Mormon 9)

[Calm]

Thanks.

[canard78]

Whoa! Hold one here! I would consider critics and environmentalists two different subspecies. The difference between the two is that for the critic, "Joseph copied sections of the KJV when writing the BoM" is an endpoint--therefore Joseph was a fraud. Environmentalists make the same statement as beginning point--asking new questions about how and why he used the material. If that wasn't clear before, I apologize and will keep it in mind if and when I revise the essay.

Sorry, your essay was very clear. My label wasn't. I wasn't suggesting 'critic' and 'environmentalist' was synonymous. Just that either a 'critic' OR 'environmentalist' could make that opening statement. Saying 'Joseph wrote it' does not have to be critical. But some historicists might still dispute your conclusions, leading to a similar conversation (but with different implications).

[canard78]

I am well aware of that claim, but I don't buy it. The list of scholars I gave you all agree that Joseph used a copy of the KJV Bible when he came to extensive passages being quoted, and they are well aware of claims that Joseph did not used the Bible -- no doubt interpreting that to mean that Joseph didn't use the Bible when that individual was watching. In other words, such copying was not a frequent issue.

Memorization is off the table as highly improbable, and unnecessary.

.....................................................

Sorry, in the flurry of posts on the two threads I might have missed the list. Was it the one that included BH Roberts? Or did someone else post that list.

So you believe that Joseph did actually have a KJV Bible on hand and copied directly out it?

Do you think that's what was actually said to the Nephites? What about Mark 16? Why quote direct from a source that's unoriginal if the spirit's guiding and not something Jesus ever said in Jerusalem?

[canard78]

I assume Robert meant that those witnesses of the translation process (at least to the extent of being in the room while it was happening) who state he didn't use a Bible just didn't happen to see the translation during that time period. It is not like people had appointments to come by and watch him in my understanding. If they saw the translation, they were either involved as a scribe (which would have been at the earlier part except for Oliver) or they happened to have dropped by where they either took off quickly or stuck around to watch...perhaps on more than one occasion such as Sister Whitney (IIRC) describes herself. It was not an intentional avoidance by Joseph, iwo, to prevent others seeing him use a Bible, it just happened that way.

Someone help me here so I don't have to go look it up: When was the Bible purchased that has been referenced and was the BoM translation done by that time?

This one isn't referenced, but still says when it happened (bought oct 29, JST started Jun 30)

It was while the Book of Mormon was being printed at E.B. Grandin’s print shop in October 1829 that Oliver Cowdery purchased from Grandin the King James Bible that Joseph Smith used in the translation.

http://history.lds.org/article/revelations-in-context-doctrine-and-covenants-joseph-smith-translation-bible?lang=eng

And here:

Cowdery wrote the following on the flyleaf of the Bible: "The Book of the Jews And the Property of Joseph Smith Junior and Oliver Cowdery Bought October the 8th 1829 at Egbert B Grandins Book Store Palmyra Wayne County New York." Further down, Cowdery noted: "Price $3.75 Holiness to the Lord." What Smith and Cowdery purchased was a version of the King James Bible published by Elihu Phinney in Cooperstown, New York. Version, because Phinney's edition modernized some of the language.

http://usreligion.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/joseph-smith-bible-and-book-of-moses.html?m=1

It's also worth adding some more dates:

... The original manuscript, as we have it, was produced in the spring and early summer of 1829 by scribes who wrote down Joseph Smith’s dictation of the text... The printer’s manuscript is the copy of the original manuscript that scribes produced from August 1829 to the early part of 1830. For the most part, the 1830 printer set the type from the printer’s manuscript.

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2002-fair-conference/2002-changes-in-the-book-of-mormon

MormonMason has said that Joseph had no access to a bible because he once sent for a neighbour's bible to settle a dispute. This is apparent evidence that neither he nor the whitmers owned one.

I've not seen any dates or sources for this claim. It would surprise me if he had no access to a bible during translation.

[tagriffy]

Sorry, your essay was very clear. My label wasn't. I wasn't suggesting 'critic' and 'environmentalist' was synonymous. Just that either a 'critic' OR 'environmentalist' could make that opening statement. Saying 'Joseph wrote it' does not have to be critical. But some historicists might still dispute your conclusions, leading to a similar conversation (but with different implications).

Thank you for the clarification. I wouldn't expect historicists to agree with me. One thing I tried to achieve was even-handedness; this is why I pointed readers to responses for each point I made, even though I obviously didn't agree with them. The most I can hope for is an irenic conversation that takes me where I'm at. I know it is possible, because Brant Gardner, Kevin Barney and Mark Schindler (may he rest in peace), among others, have all done that for me. In other words, mutual respect between historicists and environmentalists is about the best that can be hoped for.

You are also right that an environmentalist and a historicist might have a similar conversation. Funnily enough, I'm not inclined to get into such conversations. For the reasons I made in the previous post, I certainly wouldn't use the "most correct book" line in such a conversation. More importantly, for me it would be reinventing the wheel. Even if I never tried to publish it, the essay I wrote was really a cathartic experience for me. It was (and still is) my intention to just start moving forward. The historicity debate, as such, simply doesn't interest me anymore.

[canard78]

Thank you for the clarification. I wouldn't expect historicists to agree with me. One thing I tried to achieve was even-handedness; this is why I pointed readers to responses for each point I made, even though I obviously didn't agree with them. The most I can hope for is an irenic conversation that takes me where I'm at. I know it is possible, because Brant Gardner, Kevin Barney and Mark Schindler (may he rest in peace), among others, have all done that for me. In other words, mutual respect between historicists and environmentalists is about the best that can be hoped for.

You are also right that an environmentalist and a historicist might have a similar conversation. Funnily enough, I'm not inclined to get into such conversations. For the reasons I made in the previous post, I certainly wouldn't use the "most correct book" line in such a conversation. More importantly, for me it would be reinventing the wheel. Even if I never tried to publish it, the essay I wrote was really a cathartic experience for me. It was (and still is) my intention to just start moving forward. The historicity debate, as such, simply doesn't interest me anymore.

You asked in the other thread why I hold back fully from embracing expansion or environment theories.

Although I hadn't given them a name, they are both positions I've given considerable thought to.

I keep wrestling because there's a noise in my head saying that it's the Historical approach or bust. Maybe it's the spirit. Or maybe it's my brain.

There really isn't much room for anything other than historical in the major rhetoric of church leaders. They have not taught it this way. I've been raised on the conviction that it's historical. I've been certain there's almost enough evidence to prove it true but just a few grams short to protect and not indict the 'unbeliever' and leave a room for faith.

I am no longer convinced. The noise in my head (brain?) says it's time to pack up and leave. But this is my tribe and my home. I don't want to go.

Of the two Es - I wobble between them both and sometimes consider both to be a copout. I prefer the Expansionist approach as it leaves more room for an historical Nephi. Just perhaps a bit less like the one we read of.

Having said that, when I discover issues like Mark 16 appearing in Mormon 9 and all its associated problems I struggle to see anything other than Environmental being the only reasonable explanation.

I know for certain it's an inspiring book. I'm trying to make room for a divinely inspired origin.

[tagriffy]

You asked in the other thread why I hold back fully from embracing expansion or environment theories.

Although I hadn't given them a name, they are both positions I've given considerable thought to.

I keep wrestling because there's a noise in my head saying that it's the Historical approach or bust. Maybe it's the spirit. Or maybe it's my brain.

There really isn't much room for anything other than historical in the major rhetoric of church leaders. They have not taught it this way. I've been raised on the conviction that it's historical. I've been certain there's almost enough evidence to prove it true but just a few grams short to protect and not indict the 'unbeliever' and leave a room for faith.

I am no longer convinced. The noise in my head (brain?) says it's time to pack up and leave. But this is my tribe and my home. I don't want to go.

Of the two Es - I wobble between them both and sometimes consider both to be a copout. I prefer the Expansionist approach as it leaves more room for an historical Nephi. Just perhaps a bit less like the one we read of.

Having said that, when I discover issues like Mark 16 appearing in Mormon 9 and all its associated problems I struggle to see anything other than Environmental being the only reasonable explanation.

I know for certain it's an inspiring book. I'm trying to make room for a divinely inspired origin.

You already have your basic answer: the Book of Mormon has a divinely inspired origin. Hold on to that because the rest is just working out the details. I think the Expansionist is probably the best view for you. Yes, the Nephi you get here is not quite the Nephi you're used to, but it will solve the problem of Mark 16 appearing in Mormon 9 quite handily. You should also consider that even if we find the proverbial "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign, it is possible you're still may not get the Nephi you're used to.

Consider that some scholars in the ethnographic school I mentioned in the other thread hold that the Book of Mormon is actually a lineage history. IIRC, John Sorenson proposed this in his Ancient American Setting. I think Brant Gardner adopted this view; at least that is what it seemed like when I was in another forum with him. So it is a biased history that we shouldn't expect everything to match up perfectly. Quite like the Bible in fact. If I'm not remembering correctly or I'm missing something important, I expect somebody will jump in and improve what I'm trying to say here.

There is no need to leave yet. Try embracing the Expansionist theory and see where it gets you. If a solution to the problem you are having with Mark/Mormon presents itself, you can always switch back to a historicist view. If it still bothers you, then you can try the Environmentalist theory. Meanwhile, you can also know for a certainty that there are people in your corner that are willing to do everything they can to help you.

[cdowis]

The list of scholars I gave you all agree that Joseph used a copy of the KJV Bible when he came to extensive passages being quoted, and they are well aware of claims that Joseph did not used the Bible -- no doubt interpreting that to mean that Joseph didn't use the Bible when that individual was watching. In other words, such copying was not a frequent issue.

Apparently you should review the logical fallacy, "argument from authority". You can read about it here at http://www.theskepti...cies.aspx from an expert on logical fallacies. :>) It is really tiresome to read a post with the main point "many/ most/ all experts agree..."

Just curious, how does an "scholar from BYU" strengthen your argument? Please extend an invitation to this scholar who teaches at the true university. We all would like to hear his views and be able to ask him questions.

My dear fellow, the issue is not *who* says something, but *what* they say and *why*. I am influenced by Nibley, in the sense that the opinion of an informed, intelligent person has equal weight with that of a scholar, if they are equally in possession of the facts. The scholar may have additional facts, and he can share them with us.

Who knows but that he may modify his opinion after a session on this forum.

Edited June 1, 2013 by cdowis

[cdowis]

That's based on the presumption that the Book of Mormon is the 'the dog.' I appreciate that it's "most correct" status gives it a position of authority. But that doesn't make it a perfect book. Nor does it mean that every word was delivered by some "floating quill" transcription. If it were, then there wouldn't have been so many corrections in later editions.

Just curious why you feel it necessary to create strawman arguments. Why not address the actual arguments that I actually made, rather than grabbing silly arguments that others have made.

I reject the premise that there is only one conclusion. Their conclusion is based on an assumption, and I am presenting an alternative one.

Present your argument outside the silly statement that "scholars agree". Refute my position like an adult.

I stated that "oldest is best" as generally a sound assumption, but not always valid in specific cases. The weather man, with all of his technology, can give a weather prediction in the general area, but not always for my specific patch of ground. Indeed he may be completely mistaken.

I presented the assumption that we should judge those scholastic **opinions** by the BOM as the gold standard, rather than using their conclusions based on flawed assumptions.

I think the presumption that all scholarly efforts in history or in science must be wrong if they contradict our current attitudes to the gospel is limiting and unneeded. For example, many members are comfortable not being advocates of a "young earth" and accepting the notion of "pre-adamites." We don't have to take everything literally for it to have a spiritual impact in our lives.

(emphasis added)

This is not a SS class but an apologetic forum. In this forum, your comments are condescending, if not insulting.

I am questioning their assumptions upon which they draw their conclusions, not their factual efforts. I understand the difference between opinion/assumptions and fact.

Edited June 1, 2013 by cdowis

[CV75]

So there's a guy travelling round the world some time between 200-400AD giving extra bits of information?

Why not? That is what some translated beings do.

Mormon makes no allusion at all to this being 'found later.' It is also claimed as an original statement made to the Nephites (not an emailed copy of what some writer in 200AD thought he should have said before his ascension near Jerusalem):

I don't hink we can fault Mormon (actually Moroni) for leaving such details out -- it as hard for him to write. Of course it is was an original statement made before many people, but one that was left out of the Nephite record until one of teh disciples that tarried made it accessible (somehow) to both Moroni and Ariston. God works in mysterious ways, which I think is one of your points. Seems plausible to me.

[Questing Beast]

.

...

• With all of these parallels and verbatim quotes should we simply consider God as the author of our faith who gave these words in a similar language to the KJV to make them fit as a stronger united gospel message?
  

...

That's close to how I look at all religion. God works inside all religions, regardless of our preconceptions or expectations. The simplest explanation for the similarity in language and use of biblical terms isn't that God speaks that way: JS expressed himself that way. Whatever the religion includes, JS was seeking inspiration from God, and the total package was the best that JS could come up with. Millions appear satisfied with it, and thus it grows.

Growing, worldwide faiths are a rare phenomenon, but they share in common a singular feature: the founders are bigger than the other mortals surrounding them, and right away, the miraculous and metaphysical events dominate the story and make the literal facts hard or even impossible to separate out....

[Kevin Christensen]

I'm for keeping a broad perspective. Does fixation on this passage as "a smoking gun" with it's implication of simple and naive plagiarism by Joseph Smith lead to a generalized theory of everything about the content and production of the Book of Mormon?

Is it a stable and reliable, immovable place to stand, and does the issue provide sufficient leverage to move one's intellectual and spiritual world? As Archimedes says, give me a lever and a place to stand, I can move the world.

Does obvious anachronism provide a comprehensive and coherent explanation of the Book of Mormon?

I don't think so. The issue of obvious anachronism comes up very early among Book of Mormon critics, but "obviousness" regularly turns out to be a matter of faulty perspective. Alexander Campbell for instance, from 1831 thought the Book of Mormon was anachronistically too Christian before Christ. We can forgive him for not having the sources and resources that Margaret Barker did, and the different conclusions that she provides. I also noticed that most of what Blake Ostler suggested were "prophetic expansions" of an ancient text in his important and still useful 1987 article come because he sees them as being too Christian before Christ. Barker's first book, The Older Testament, was published in 1987.

The life and work of Jesus were, and should be, interpreted in the light of something other than Jerusalem Judaism. This other had its roots in the conflicts of the sixth century BC when the traditions of the monarchy were divided as an inheritance amongst several heirs. It would have been lost but for the accidents of archaeological discovery and the evidence of pre-Christian texts preserved and transmitted only by Christian hands.

See Margaret Barker, The Older Testament: The Survival of Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK, 1987), 6–7, emphasis in original.

My own paradigm is based on my experiences in finding that many claims about anachronsim in the Book of Mormon have turned out to be premature. I remember reading an essay in Sunstone in the 80s in which the author claimed that the Book of Mormon has Jesus quoting the words of Peter before Peter spoke them. I researched that myself for an essay in RBBM 2:1

This statement contains several unquestioned assumptions, most notably that Peter's words were original. In all the years Mr. Smith has brandished this paradox, he has never troubled to ask whether any evidence could make plausible the case that in Acts, Peter was quoting the words of Christ, after Christ spoke them.

(1) Peter was called as an emissary, a sent one, told that the spirit would "bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" (John 14:26).

(2) Peter's writings include quotations and paraphrases from earlier writings, including "It is unto them according to the true proverb." Some of these quotations and paraphrases do not come from known Old Testament writings, but from recently rediscovered writings such as the Dead Sea Scrolls.⁵⁷

(3) The verses to which Mr. Smith refers, including those he quotes (Acts 3:26 and 3 Nephi 20:26), show evidence of formulaic constructions (deliberately unoriginal), rather than just an exclusive dependence on Deuteronomy 18:15-19.

http://maxwellinstit...l=2&num=1&id=48

Nibley earlier, and later Matt Roper and John Tvedtnes, both separately and together used computer media to test many candidates.

Roper here, for instance:

http://maxwellinstit...l=3&num=1&id=70

1. Examples where Old Testament language is equal to or closer to the that of the New Testament passage given by the authors as proof of plagiarism.

2. Examples where Old Testament language can be found which very closely resembles that of the New Testament language.

3. Examples in which the Book of Mormon could have drawn upon Old Testament ideas.

And there remains the significant issue of oral transmision. Some things circulate a long time before they get written down. Margaret points out that a number of early Christian Fathers valued the unwritten things more than what was written. See for instance her "The Secret Tradition" in The Great High Priest and on her website.

There was far more to the teaching of Jesus than is recorded in the canonical gospels. For several

centuries a belief persisted among Christian writers that there had been a secret tradition entrusted to

only a few of his followers. Eusebius quotes from a now lost work of Clement of Alexandria.

‘James the Righteous, John and Peter were entrusted by the LORD after his resurrection

with the higher knowledge. They imparted it to the other apostles, and the other apostles to the

seventy, one of whom was Barnabas.’ (History 2.1) This brief statement offers three important pieces

of evidence: the tradition was given to an inner circle of disciples; the tradition was given after the

resurrection; and the tradition was a form of higher knowledge i.e. gnosis.

http://www.margaretb...etTradition.pdf

And there is the matter of a passage that is crucial in the formation of my own testimony:

And then shall ye know that I (Moroni) have seen Jesus, and that he hath talked with me face to face, and that he told me in plain humility, even as a man telleth another in mine own language, concerning these things;

And only a few have I written, because of my weakness in writing.( Ether 12:39-40)

Paradigms are defined by "standard examples of scientific work that embody a set of standards, methods and assumptions." While I now and then come across things in the Book of Mormon that I find puzzling, this is to be expected. This situation is the source of what Kuhn calls "the essential tension" in which all science and scholarship is done. That is, we are trying to solve a puzzle within the framework defined by the paradigm. That there are puzzles to solve creates the tension. Till we are all omniscient and there is nothing left to learn, that tension will exist.

I see the problem of apparent anachronism as multi-dimensional. We do not have a complete knowledge of what was available to ancient writers. Oral tradition is, by nature, a bit difficult to trace. Manuscripts are random survivals. I've got paradigmatic precidents for resolving such issues.

And there is the problem of translation, which according to Websters 1828 dictionary, means to "carry across." We are specifically told that the translation is going to be imperfect, and in the language of the translators, according their understanding.

And there is the issue of perspective. If it happens that the Book of Mormon contains evidence of things like E source traditions, type scenes, 40 Day teaching, eye witness details of locations and settings in both the Old and the New World (see Nahom, and Poulson's work on the map), and First Temple theology, how much weight should the Mark 16 issue carry? If I drop a even a little weight on an unbalanced scale, how impressed should I be when I hear the clunk as it tilts? Does it signify the Bell of Doom tolling for my faith? Or perhaps does it signify more about the way I am setting up the balance scale?

Sometimes, it's not just a matter of not seeing the forest for the trees, but of not seeing the forest for the twig.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited June 1, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[tagriffy]

Paradigms are defined by "standard examples of scientific work that embody a set of standards, methods and assumptions." While I now and then come across things in the Book of Mormon that I find puzzling, this is to be expected. This situation is the source of what Kuhn calls "the essential tension" in which all science and scholarship is done. That is, we are trying to solve a puzzle within the framework defined by the paradigm. That there are puzzles to solve creates the tension. Till we are all omniscient and there is nothing left to learn, that tension will exist.

I see the problem of apparent anachronism as multi-dimensional. We do not have a complete knowledge of what was available to ancient writers. Oral tradition is, by nature, a bit difficult to trace. Manuscripts are random survivals. I've got paradigmatic precidents for resolving such issues.

And there is the problem of translation, which according to Websters 1828 dictionary, means to "carry across." We are specifically told that the translation is going to be imperfect, and in the language of the translators, according their understanding.

And there is the issue of perspective. If it happens that the Book of Mormon contains evidence of things like E source traditions, type scenes, 40 Day teaching, eye witness details of locations and settings in both the Old and the New World (see Nahom, and Poulson's work on the map), and First Temple theology, how much weight should the Mark 16 issue carry? If I drop a even a little weight on an unbalanced scale, how impressed should I be when I hear the clunk as it tilts? Does it signify the Bell of Doom tolling for my faith? Or perhaps does it signify more about the way I am setting up the balance scale?

Sometimes, it's not just a matter of not seeing the forest for the trees, but of not seeing the forest for the twig.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Thank you Kevin! I've been working on this as issue of paradigms, but you brought up things I forgot to say but needed to be said.

[Nevo]

Does obvious anachronism provide a comprehensive and coherent explanation of the Book of Mormon? I don't think so. The issue of obvious anachronism comes up very early among Book of Mormon critics, but "obviousness" regularly turns out to be a matter of faulty perspective.

I agree that simply pointing to anachronisms in the Book of Mormon isn't sufficient to explain it, but it is clear to me that they are there.

You indicate that supposedly obvious anachronisms "regularly" turn out to be no anachronisms at all, and you support this assertion by pointing to Margaret Barker's work as well as to research conducted by yourself and other FARMS contributors. I am sure many on this board readily accept your assertion that the problem of the Book of Mormon being "too Christian before Christ" has been adequately addressed by Margaret Barker's The Older Testament (and the problem of NT passages in the Book of Mormon by yourself and Matt Roper), but I do not.

As one who has no confidence whatsoever in Margaret Barker's theories, I think the Book of Mormon's anachronistic Christianity is still a very strong argument for a modern (or at least partly modern) origin.

[canard78]

You already have your basic answer: the Book of Mormon has a divinely inspired origin. Hold on to that because the rest is just working out the details. I think the Expansionist is probably the best view for you. Yes, the Nephi you get here is not quite the Nephi you're used to, but it will solve the problem of Mark 16 appearing in Mormon 9 quite handily. You should also consider that even if we find the proverbial "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign, it is possible you're still may not get the Nephi you're used to.

Consider that some scholars in the ethnographic school I mentioned in the other thread hold that the Book of Mormon is actually a lineage history. IIRC, John Sorenson proposed this in his Ancient American Setting. I think Brant Gardner adopted this view; at least that is what it seemed like when I was in another forum with him. So it is a biased history that we shouldn't expect everything to match up perfectly. Quite like the Bible in fact. If I'm not remembering correctly or I'm missing something important, I expect somebody will jump in and improve what I'm trying to say here.

There is no need to leave yet. Try embracing the Expansionist theory and see where it gets you. If a solution to the problem you are having with Mark/Mormon presents itself, you can always switch back to a historicist view. If it still bothers you, then you can try the Environmentalist theory. Meanwhile, you can also know for a certainty that there are people in your corner that are willing to do everything they can to help you.

Thanks the support and kind words.

Does expansion really work with Mark 16?

What's the phrase aimed at mormons by critics sometimes? Mental gymnastics? Isn't expansion simply sitting on the fense?

[canard78]

Apparently you should review the logical fallacy, "argument from authority". You can read about it here at http://www.theskepti...cies.aspx from an expert on logical fallacies. :>) It is really tiresome to read a post with the main point "many/ most/ all experts agree..."

I'm guessing this post was to me even though you'd quoted Robert?

My point is not 'most scholars agree.' My point is that the evidence strongly points towards Mark 16:9-20 not being Markan and being a later addition. In my opinion, having weighed up the evidence, it is not original and not added later from an original but alternative source. In other words, I conclude that 16:9-20 (particilarly 17-18) are words that were not said actually said in 33AD near Jerusalem. I cite scholars, people who have studied it far more than me, to show that others also reach this conclusion.

Just curious, how does an "scholar from BYU" strengthen your argument? Please extend an invitation to this scholar who teaches at the true university. We all would like to hear his views and be able to ask him questions.

My dear fellow, the issue is not *who* says something, but *what* they say and *why*. I am influenced by Nibley, in the sense that the opinion of an informed, intelligent person has equal weight with that of a scholar, if they are equally in possession of the facts. The scholar may have additional facts, and he can share them with us.

Who knows but that he may modify his opinion after a session on this forum.

He may. But would you be able to share the evidence that you think would convince him that 9-20 is original. I've not seen you present any evidence that it is. You've only said 'the exact same thing is in the BoM so Mark must also be authentic.' That's not very convincing.

Unfortunately I'm not part of the BYU inner-circle. Perhaps you or one of the people who knows him could invite him. I'd love to get his perspective. I'd be interested to know whether he was aware of Mormon 9 when he wrote his article. In some ways I hope it wasn't. It means his research was independent of the possible implications of his research. Research that lead him to reach a 'not original' conclusion. For you and I, our reading of the evidence is coloured by whatever prejudice we had when we started evaluating it.

[canard78]

Just curious why you feel it necessary to create strawman arguments. Why not address the actual arguments that I actually made, rather than grabbing silly arguments that others have made.

I reject the premise that there is only one conclusion. Their conclusion is based on an assumption, and I am presenting an alternative one.

Present your argument outside the silly statement that "scholars agree". Refute my position like an adult.

I stated that "oldest is best" as generally a sound assumption, but not always valid in specific cases. The weather man, with all of his technology, can give a weather prediction in the general area, but not always for my specific patch of ground. Indeed he may be completely mistaken.

I presented the assumption that we should judge those scholastic **opinions** by the BOM as the gold standard, rather than using their conclusions based on flawed assumptions.

This is not a SS class but an apologetic forum. In this forum, your comments are condescending, if not insulting.

I am questioning their assumptions upon which they draw their conclusions, not their factual efforts. I understand the difference between opinion/assumptions and fact.

I've answered most of this in my other recent post. The only evidence I've seen you present is Mormon 9. How does that prove Mark 16 to be original?

(BTW When you reply inside my original post it makes it quite difficult to reply. If you simply quote me and then add quote 'cuts' you can still do the same and that allows me to properly reply.)

[canard78]

Why not? That is what some translated beings do.

I don't hink we can fault Mormon (actually Moroni) for leaving such details out -- it as hard for him to write. Of course it is was an original statement made before many people, but one that was left out of the Nephite record until one of teh disciples that tarried made it accessible (somehow) to both Moroni and Ariston. God works in mysterious ways, which I think is one of your points. Seems plausible to me.

Thanks, you're right. Moroni adds it while wrapping up Mormon. But what Moroni wrote and what Joseph dictated (or was inspired to read out of the KJV) may be two different things.

Are you saying that it's plausible to you that one of the three Nephites first travelled to Greece around 150AD to tell Ariston to add the passage, then back to Mesoamerica around 250 years later to ask Moroni to do the same? Passages that were things said on both continents at his departure but both coincidentally missed at the time? And then both identically translated by a group of academics in 1604 and Joseph in 1829?

[canard78]

I'm for keeping a broad perspective. Does fixation on this passage as "a smoking gun" with it's implication of simple and naive plagiarism by Joseph Smith lead to a generalized theory of everything about the content and production of the Book of Mormon?

Is it a stable and reliable, immovable place to stand, and does the issue provide sufficient leverage to move one's intellectual and spiritual world? As Archimedes says, give me a lever and a place to stand, I can move the world.

Does obvious anachronism provide a comprehensive and coherent explanation of the Book of Mormon?

I don't think so. The issue of obvious anachronism comes up very early among Book of Mormon critics, but "obviousness" regularly turns out to be a matter of faulty perspective. Alexander Campbell for instance, from 1831 thought the Book of Mormon was anachronistically too Christian before Christ. We can forgive him for not having the sources and resources that Margaret Barker did, and the different conclusions that she provides. I also noticed that most of what Blake Ostler suggested were "prophetic expansions" of an ancient text in his important and still useful 1987 article come because he sees them as being too Christian before Christ. Barker's first book, The Older Testament, was published in 1987.

See Margaret Barker, The Older Testament: The Survival of Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK, 1987), 6–7, emphasis in original.

My own paradigm is based on my experiences in finding that many claims about anachronsim in the Book of Mormon have turned out to be premature. I remember reading an essay in Sunstone in the 80s in which the author claimed that the Book of Mormon has Jesus quoting the words of Peter before Peter spoke them. I researched that myself for an essay in RBBM 2:1

http://maxwellinstit...l=2&num=1&id=48

Nibley earlier, and later Matt Roper and John Tvedtnes, both separately and together used computer media to test many candidates.

Roper here, for instance:

http://maxwellinstit...l=3&num=1&id=70

And there remains the significant issue of oral transmision. Some things circulate a long time before they get written down. Margaret points out that a number of early Christian Fathers valued the unwritten things more than what was written. See for instance her "The Secret Tradition" in The Great High Priest and on her website.

http://www.margaretb...etTradition.pdf

And there is the matter of a passage that is crucial in the formation of my own testimony:

Paradigms are defined by "standard examples of scientific work that embody a set of standards, methods and assumptions." While I now and then come across things in the Book of Mormon that I find puzzling, this is to be expected. This situation is the source of what Kuhn calls "the essential tension" in which all science and scholarship is done. That is, we are trying to solve a puzzle within the framework defined by the paradigm. That there are puzzles to solve creates the tension. Till we are all omniscient and there is nothing left to learn, that tension will exist.

I see the problem of apparent anachronism as multi-dimensional. We do not have a complete knowledge of what was available to ancient writers. Oral tradition is, by nature, a bit difficult to trace. Manuscripts are random survivals. I've got paradigmatic precidents for resolving such issues.

And there is the problem of translation, which according to Websters 1828 dictionary, means to "carry across." We are specifically told that the translation is going to be imperfect, and in the language of the translators, according their understanding.

And there is the issue of perspective. If it happens that the Book of Mormon contains evidence of things like E source traditions, type scenes, 40 Day teaching, eye witness details of locations and settings in both the Old and the New World (see Nahom, and Poulson's work on the map), and First Temple theology, how much weight should the Mark 16 issue carry? If I drop a even a little weight on an unbalanced scale, how impressed should I be when I hear the clunk as it tilts? Does it signify the Bell of Doom tolling for my faith? Or perhaps does it signify more about the way I am setting up the balance scale?

Sometimes, it's not just a matter of not seeing the forest for the trees, but of not seeing the forest for the twig.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Thank you for your generous contribution. Whenever you join a conversation it's like a friendly uncle putting his arm round my shoulder and saying 'don't worry about it lad.'

But how does answer why Mormon 9 is translated as an exact match to Mark 16 - an unoriginal text?

I also recognise that in isolation Mark 16 is a twig. But lots and lots of twigs build a bonfire. And mine's a growing pile. If a fire gets big enough it will take out a whole forest.

If Mark 16 were the only issue it would probably not be a problem. But to say, 'don't worry about Mark 16 when all this other evidence exists supporting the BoM as historical' is still not answering what Mark 16 is doing in the BoM in the first place.

[tagriffy]

Thanks the support and kind words.

Does expansion really work with Mark 16?

What's the phrase aimed at mormons by critics sometimes? Mental gymnastics? Isn't expansion simply sitting on the fense?

You're welcome--and feel free to PM me if you feel you need to.

I think expansion would work very well with Mark 16. Consider that Moroni is directly addressing the modern audience in Mormon 9 and talking about the necessity of miracles. What more appropriate place could there be to use Mark 16, even if it happens to a bit anachronistic? The Book of Mormon is already about observing the testimony of two nations running together (2 Ne. 29:. If Joseph thought Moroni's argument could be strengthened with Mark 16, and God permitted or encouraged it, the result is still Scripture.

If anybody can and has been accused of mental gymnastics, that would be me. "Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. Therefore he was a prophet." That pretty well sums up my position. I'm vulnerable to the mental gymnastics accusation by both historicists and critics. But I have what I have. I have the conviction that God speaks to me through the Book of Mormon. I also have the evidence I see before me (explained in my essay). I also see there is a missing piece of key evidence (no "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign). Mental gymnastics? Like every other human being, I'm simply trying to make do the best I can with the light I have.

Expansionists could indeed be accused of fence sitting; Blake Ostler has been essentially accused of it by both historicists and environmentalists. But let's go back to what Kevin said about paradigms, which I culled into what I thought was the most important point in my response. For any given paradigm, there are going to be counterfactuals for it. Lacking omniscience, it can't be helped; like Kevin said, it is to be expected. Expansionists find too many counterfactuals to embrace the BoM as completely ancient; likewise they see too many counterfactuals to embrace the BoM as completely modern. If the expansionist is engaged in fence sitting, they would say that is the only rational thing for them to do.

Like I said before, you already have what is truly essential. You are doing the right thing in trying to resolve a problem "by study and by faith." Don't let anyone take that from you.

[Johnnie Cake]

Canard78,

May I be so bold as to ask why you are afraid of following this through to its logical conclusion? So those mark passages were not original to mark and found their way into the Book of Mormon. What is stopping you from forming a conclusion based on your studies?

[canard78]

Canard78,

May I be so bold as to ask why you are afraid of following this through to its logical conclusion? So those mark passages were not original to mark and found their way into the Book of Mormon. What is stopping you from forming a conclusion based on your studies?

I actually think all three positions have plausibility. There is no conclusive proof that any of the three positions are right. There is evidence that Joseph could have written it. But not conclusive proof that he did. There is also evidence that Nephi could have existed but not conclusive proof that he did.

[cdowis]

If Mark 16 were the only issue it would probably not be a problem. But to say, 'don't worry about Mark 16 when all this other evidence exists supporting the BoM as historical' is still not answering what Mark 16 is doing in the BoM in the first place.

You have been given an answer. It has been brushed aside as it lacks the imprimatur of the scholars who declare it an "anachronism", and unworthy of any serious consideration.

Anyway, your question indeed poses an issue to those scholars who accept the BOM as an authentic record, and they seem unable to give a suitable response. (A twig??)

Perhaps they will seek counsel from Jay Carney.

Edited June 2, 2013 by cdowis

[tagriffy]

You have been given an answer. It has been brushed aside as it lacks the imprimatur of the scholars who declare it an "anachronism", and unworthy of any serious consideration.

Actually, canard78 was not given an answer. He was given a principle. He was grateful for the response he did get. He is now (rightly) asking how that principle applies to this individual case. That is hardly brushing it aside.

Anyway, your question indeed poses an issue to those scholars who accept the BOM as an authentic record, and they seem unable to give a suitable response. (A twig??)

Yes, exactly. But, and is the important point, he is still seeking an answer. That in itself suggests a remarkable amount of faith.

[canard78]

You have been given an answer. It has been brushed aside as it lacks the imprimatur of the scholars who declare it an "anachronism", and unworthy of any serious consideration.

Anyway, your question indeed poses an issue to those scholars who accept the BOM as an authentic record, and they seem unable to give a suitable response. (A twig??)

Perhaps they will seek counsel from Jay Carney.

I'd really like to persist with this conversation if possible. I find it a helpful way of considering the perspectives I could take while approaching the questions I have.

Can I clarify that the answer you have given and the only one you consider relevant is that the presence of the identical passage in the BoM means it's automatically pointless to question the origins of Mark 16? Being in Mormon means Mark is also validated as being authentic?

I am not trying to create straw men nor put words in your mouth, simply to understand your position.

Do you have any evidence that Mark 16 IS original apart from a matching passage in the BoM? And even if there is none, are you saying it makes no difference to you given 'the tail doesn't wag the dog.'