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

[canard78]

You are missing the point.

These people do not see the BOM as a valid ancient source document. If they did, then their view of Mark 16 would likely be very different. The BOM text verifies that this passage in Mark is a recitation of the actual words of Christ.

Now, let's make this very basic ==>> They refuse to consider the BOM as a valid source document primarily BECAUSE of the angel thing.

The vast majority of the people who have studied the Mark issue will have barely even read the Book of Mormon, let alone be aware of Mormon 9 having an identical passage.

They have studied the best evidence available to them and reached that conclusion.

[canard78]

And I wish them all the best in attempting to reconcile it. I have done so to my own personal satisfaction, whether to see this as dumping the KJV into the BOM or whether this is an actual quote from Christ to the Nephites with no reference to the book of Mark.

The BOM is quoting Christ, not the book of Mark.

So to clarify, you have no evidence that Mark 16 is the actual, original words of Christ other than that they are also found in the Book of Mormon? End of conversation?

[cdowis]

So to clarify, you have no evidence that Mark 16 is the actual, original words of Christ other than that they are also found in the Book of Mormon? End of conversation?

And scholars reject the BOM text as an authentic source document, and you appear to assume that the BOM is quoting Mark. Well, I assume that this text is evidence from an ancient source document, independent of the Bible, and a valid source document is being ignored by scholars.

Now, you can decide whether this is the end of a conversation. Your choice.

But it's all about our assumptions, right?

Edited June 6, 2013 by cdowis

[canard78]

And scholars reject the BOM text as an authentic source document, and you appear to assume that the BOM is quoting Mark. Well, I assume that this text is evidence from an ancient source document, independent of the Bible, and a valid source document is being ignored by scholars.

Now, you can decide whether this is the end of a conversation. Your choice.

But it's all about our assumptions, right?

Thanks for your contribution to the conversation.

[Johnnie Cake]

Carard78...Just curious if you have been able to form any conclusions regarding your OP in the 2 threads you've been discussed this topic?

[canard78]

Carard78...Just curious if you have been able to form any conclusions regarding your OP in the 2 threads you've been discussed this topic?

Yes and no... Actually more no. The idea of ever reaching a conclusion is unlikely. At the moment I'm working with probabilities and a couple of certainties:

I am certain, through repeated experience that I enjoy reading the Book of Mormon, am inspired by it and am more likely to "be excellent" to others when I apply the key themes within it.

I am also certain that the BoM is not the only book able to do this. Being in the middle of studying certain ancient Chinese philosophy (currently working through an English translation of the Nei Ye) I see many principles within in that can impact me and others. Having said that, I see no reason to abandon the Book of Mormon just because I can also seek wisdom out of the best books.

My primary concern will always be whether the "words work" - the BoM's origins are of secondary concern. Secondary, but still a concern. A concern because their actual provenance has huge implications on the rest of Mormonism. The leaders since 19thC have always wanted to set it up as such.

Whether it is an inspiring fraud through to the pure channeled dictation from the heavens (or somewhere in between) has implications on the the other authority/revelation claims of the church.

Of the three broad possible explanations I lean more toward the 'expansionist' middle. Which brings me to my 'probabilities.' In Mormonism we might call them beliefs or hopes. The unknown and unseen.

1) God probably exists and inspires men of all cultures and times to create scripture to guide and instruct his children.

2) There is probably some historical merit to the BoM stories. I don't accept it as a 'documentary' but I've not entirely let go of the idea of an historical Nephi/Alma/Moroni. This is more a hope than a belief. I like their characters too much to entirely let go of the chance that I might meet them one day. Moroni's example of servitude in solitude has long been a strength to me and I'd like to thank him for it.

3) The KJV New Testament quotes are probably explained by the most obvious option: Joseph copied them verbatim. There have been several great answers on both threads and people have been very generous with their time. But nothing has really offered a satisfactory explanation of why a 1611 document (with both it's wonderful poetry and occasional errors) is used in an 1820s translation of 'Hebrew/Mesoamerican' history.

I'm not sure that's much of a conclusion but it's 'where I'm at.'

[Johnnie Cake]

I appreciate your perspective and have enjoyed reading both threads...thanks for beginning the OP

[canard78]

I appreciate your perspective and have enjoyed reading both threads...thanks for beginning the OP

Nevo mentioned Ostler in the other thread. I appreciate the approach. His article is a little out of date (1987) and new information has come to light since then, but his approach to the information is responsible:

What then, may we conclude from the Book of Mormon's use of modern sources? Only that the Book of Mormon as translated and presented by Joseph Smith relied on the KJV and was influenced by nineteenth-century American culture in rendering its message. While source criticism is useful to determine dependence, “source criticism per se reveals only that separate sources were used in the composition of the document. It has no way of knowing “… who used them” (Slingerland 1977, 97).

He presents a balance of both. This is certainly a departure from the way it was taught to me growing up... But if leaves room for both the voice of God and Joseph in the text. As it does the 19thC and ancient influences.

For example, it is possible that an ancient source contained on the gold plates underlies the Book of Mormon, but Joseph Smith uses the KJV both for language and to clarify, expand, and interpret the thought of the original text. If the expansion theory of the Book of Mormon is correct, then the vast majority of the studies, both pro and con, have assumed far too much by simply pointing to parallels. Both ancient and modern sources could have influenced the text published in 1829 without ruling out either.

[JDave]

I think if someone wants to cling to the historicity of the Book of Mormon, I think that the expansion theory is the way to go. There is a possibility that Joseph Smith translated the record as exactly as he could, and the words just happened to mirror the KJV bible to the extent that they do, but as you have said -- that is pretty unlikely. For me, I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon as you do, and I believe that the people described in the book actually existed. So the expansion theory makes sense as an apologetic explanation. I don't think we will ever have more proof of the 'how' of the translation. Joseph Smith specifically refrained from explaining the process. So for those who have faith in the prophet and in the Book of Mormon, an apologetic explanation will either suffice, or ... not. I don't really understand why it wouldn't though. Knowing how much we don't know about the translation process, why require conclusive evidence as to how exactly the translation happened?

[tagriffy]

I think if someone wants to cling to the historicity of the Book of Mormon, I think that the expansion theory is the way to go. There is a possibility that Joseph Smith translated the record as exactly as he could, and the words just happened to mirror the KJV bible to the extent that they do, but as you have said -- that is pretty unlikely. For me, I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon as you do, and I believe that the people described in the book actually existed. So the expansion theory makes sense as an apologetic explanation. I don't think we will ever have more proof of the 'how' of the translation. Joseph Smith specifically refrained from explaining the process. So for those who have faith in the prophet and in the Book of Mormon, an apologetic explanation will either suffice, or ... not. I don't really understand why it wouldn't though. Knowing how much we don't know about the translation process, why require conclusive evidence as to how exactly the translation happened?

Knowing something about the translation process, or at least the kind of translation we are dealing with is important in helping us interpret the work. If you look at the various schools of BoM interpretation, you will see much of their work depends a given theory of the translation, even if they never explicitly state what that theory is. For example, talking about "Hebraisms" in the Book of Mormon requires a fairly literal translation. Knowing how loose or literal the translation was (not to mention what exactly is being translated) also helps give some indicators on what we can expect to find when we look for the real life setting. Whether and how much the KJV is used in the English Book of Mormon has some relevancy on the question of whether its biblical quotations represent an independent textual witness. Even for environmentalists, knowing whether the dictation is a result of stream-of-consciousness, automatic writing, and whether Joseph somehow managed to use notes has some interpretive value. Conclusive evidence on the "how" would help determine which school is on the right track, though of course it would have no bearing on whether the BoM is of divine origin.

[JDave]

I understand what you are saying and it makes sense. My remarks are definitely limited to the "divine origin" aspect.

[Stone holm]

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.

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.

As I stated in the OP, I consider the BoM to be of divine origins. But I also find its sources interesting.

What is a "pre-Adamite"? Cavemen? or something else?

[canard78]

What is a "pre-Adamite"? Cavemen? or something else?

Personally I don't depend on a first father and mother 6000 years ago. The story of Adam and Eve is important to me and teaches an important principle about our nature and relationship with God. They are more figuratively related to me than biologically. Adam may have been a living man, but I don't consider him to be the first man. I consider most of the Hebrew creation legends we find in the old testament or the creation story in the temple to be allegorical. So a pre-adamite would have probably had a simple name to Adam: "Dad"

But this is a little off topic... Happy to discuss it on another thread if you want to open one.

[Questing Beast]

"the world is more than we know"

Keep that in mind at all times, and I don't fall for the human tendency to get distracted by the finite details.

In order to approach "God", I must use every bit of my capacity to imagine.

The instant that I put limits on what is possible, I have moved toward darkness and ignorance.

Living by faith in the mortal realm means that we accept that certain physical laws governing this world do not and will not change.

That last assertion has nothing whatsoever to do with what inspires a human mind, which is directly and constantly connected to the Mind of God. This is the core understanding in dealing with the transmission of "scripture": "God" possesses all the "source material" in all places and at all times. Therefore all scripture comes from the same metaphysical Source, and we have no control over the transmission of the "source material", in what form or contents it comes. I see this more clearly, now, because of Royal Skousen's discovery of the Old and medieval English forms in the BoM. This transcends anything to do with the KJV content in the BoM. Where/how did JS get textual forms not extant in his milieu? From "God", of course. There cannot be any other answer....

[canard78]

This is the core understanding in dealing with the transmission of "scripture": "God" possesses all the "source material" in all places and at all times. Therefore all scripture comes from the same metaphysical Source, and we have no control over the transmission of the "source material", in what form or contents it comes. I see this more clearly, now, because of Royal Skousen's discovery of the Old and medieval English forms in the BoM. This transcends anything to do with the KJV content in the BoM. Where/how did JS get textual forms not extant in his milieu? From "God", of course. There cannot be any other answer....

There were no dead words only (apparent) word structures. Given it was a dictation in the weakness of the humans involved there is just as much chance that they were bad transcriptions/dictations that found their way in. Given there are over 700 examples of this identified by Skousen, to also find a handful of 'lost' 16thC words or phrases is not particularly impressive.

I can't find the original article on the 16thC language but at the time when I read it (a few weeks ago), I didn't find it particularly convincing.

[Questing Beast]

Skousen showed several examples in parallel comparison, Old English source beside BoM usage, same meaning in both. I found it quite startling, especially since the meaning of those word combinations were "dead" long before JS's time. You can toss them as "coincidental" I suppose....

[canard78]

Skousen showed several examples in parallel comparison, Old English source beside BoM usage, same meaning in both. I found it quite startling, especially since the meaning of those word combinations were "dead" long before JS's time. You can toss them as "coincidental" I suppose....

I'm reluctant to toss anything as coincidental. But in all the evidence for and against some of it must be a coincidence.

My big question about the (fairly short) list of dead phrases is 'why?' If the book is written for our day, why include phrases that are dead in that day, not just 190 years later but on the day of publication?

If the BoM was actually translated in 16thC as some (on the other thread) suggested... Who? Why?

It seems a bit like the Bible Code from the 90s. Some impressive coincidences - but for what end? Why would God hide crossword style prophecies in the Hebrew Torah... by the same token, why would God hide 16th language in a book written for an 19th and 20th C audience?

[Questing Beast]

@Canard: It seems apparent to me that this wealth of sources that are being noticed in the BoM make it increasingly unlikely to be merely a phantasm of JS's fecund imagination. Probably all metaphysical influence has the same effect on "scripture", no matter where or when. That dead language phrases pop up in the BoM out of thin air (for surely "Nephites" did not express themselves as 16th century Englishmen?) just complicates the critics' arguments, in fact renders them impossible. How do you account for the dead language phrases, all the while KJV passages are getting put into the book, but with subtle differences that scholars later compare to non KJV versions of the same passages? I'm thinking, remembering, stuff I read years ago, where the "Isaiah parts" in particular have differences from the KJV more akin to ancient Hebrew copies of Isaiah. How to account for the differences? JS's imperfect memory as he dictated Isaiah in whole chapters? That doesn't wash, when the differences are held by biblical scholars to be significant and not merely random lapses of memory or transcription.

So why would "God" hide all the sources for the BoM? Simply because it pleases him to do so, to confound the "wise" and justify faith in the book. Those with a more simple, untroubled faith, find the BoM, any scripture, to be inspiring and strengthening, because their simple faith sees the scriptures as originating from God and not of man. Finding dead language passages from 16th century English rendered virtually as the original meaning intended, is just another way to slap somebody awake with, "This book is not explained by your facile critique, it comes from a Source that you will never fathom". In other words, "God"....

[Tacenda]

Questing Beast, I sense a shift in your thinking...to a belief in God and possibly mormonism. If I'm wrong and delusional, I'm sorry ahead of time.

[canard78]

@Canard: It seems apparent to me that this wealth of sources that are being noticed in the BoM make it increasingly unlikely to be merely a phantasm of JS's fecund imagination. Probably all metaphysical influence has the same effect on "scripture", no matter where or when. That dead language phrases pop up in the BoM out of thin air (for surely "Nephites" did not express themselves as 16th century Englishmen?) just complicates the critics' arguments, in fact renders them impossible. How do you account for the dead language phrases, all the while KJV passages are getting put into the book, but with subtle differences that scholars later compare to non KJV versions of the same passages? I'm thinking, remembering, stuff I read years ago, where the "Isaiah parts" in particular have differences from the KJV more akin to ancient Hebrew copies of Isaiah. How to account for the differences? JS's imperfect memory as he dictated Isaiah in whole chapters? That doesn't wash, when the differences are held by biblical scholars to be significant and not merely random lapses of memory or transcription.

So why would "God" hide all the sources for the BoM? Simply because it pleases him to do so, to confound the "wise" and justify faith in the book. Those with a more simple, untroubled faith, find the BoM, any scripture, to be inspiring and strengthening, because their simple faith sees the scriptures as originating from God and not of man. Finding dead language passages from 16th century English rendered virtually as the original meaning intended, is just another way to slap somebody awake with, "This book is not explained by your facile critique, it comes from a Source that you will never fathom". In other words, "God"....

Useful perspectives, thanks.

As said in previous posts, I don't consider the BoM to be a wholly man-made product. I'm unsure where God and man overlap, but agree this is not simply the product of his imagination. The botched attempts of James Strang to emulate the prophet model is a good example of what a 'man-made' scripture from the earth looks like (and yet, worryingly, many of Joseph's followers bought it). I guess hindsight is always 20:20.

[Questing Beast]

Strang appeared right before JS was killed. He was a friend of the family so to speak. He had charisma. The Saints were literally in shock for years after what happened to their prophet and his family were in the deepest shock of all. They never got over their shock and did the best they could. Strang seemed "prophet-like", so I am charitable toward any who followed that model, having already committed to God to do so through JS....

[Questing Beast]

Questing Beast, I sense a shift in your thinking...to a belief in God and possibly mormonism. If I'm wrong and delusional, I'm sorry ahead of time.

I am already BIC. My feeling toward the BoM hasn't shifted as much as my feeling toward JS, et al. the early Church leaders. Yes, the BoM ceased to be a simple translation of "gold plates". I still don't buy that story. The evidence isn't there on the ground. Imho, of course, the BoM is more of a religious "novel". I don't know what the eponymous writer was up to other than being as inspiring as possible in his creation. The same holds true of JS: he was out to restore confidence in the Bible and true religion. Frontier times were hard and people were rough, even verging on barbaric often in their treatment of each other. God was far away most of the time. JS felt this keenly. He sought toward God and away from organized religion because they had destroyed what embryonic confidence in them he had once held as a boy. So primed in his mind was JS, for communion with the Divine, that God lavished a vision of a different world upon JS's mind. It grew, starting as a small boy listening to his father's shared dream/visions, some of which impressed him enough to wind up in the BoM. The sources for the BoM are varied and many. Probably we have only scratched the surface of the content's sources. The "gold plates" remain the singlemost focus of inspiration to JS, and the most enigmatic: since he had the "plates", had them taken away, had them returned till the "translation" was complete, and had them taken away again for good this time, yet seems to have not physically used the "plates" after the 116 original pages were lost. No "plates", no literal translation from them in the physical tools sense. So what was the source of the inspiration? Manifold "pieces" went into that book, but the Source is One.

Perhaps my original interest in the Book of Mormon is destined to pale compared to what is building in my mind, God knows. I did read the whole book cover to cover well over two dozen times, but continued exposure to the subject of the origins of the book have kept my interest up....

Edited June 9, 2013 by Questing Beast

[cdowis]

. by the same token, why would God hide 16th language in a book written for an 19th and 20th C audience?

It was universally recognized as "scriptural language". It was clear to me that Tyndall was inspired in his translation, as well as those who followed in his path to create the KJV. The Lord did not "use" this translation because He Himself was the ultimate author of it.

To find an answer to your question, may I suggest that you check out the history of the KJV "Fires of Faith", especially the third episode on byutv

http://www.byutv.org...fires-of-faith#

Edited June 11, 2013 by cdowis

[canard78]

It was universally recognized as "scriptural language". It was clear to me that Tyndall was inspired in his translation, as well as those who followed in his path to create the KJV. The Lord did not "use" this translation because He Himself was the ultimate author of it.

To find an answer to your question, may I suggest that you check out the history of the KJV "Fires of Faith", especially the third episode on byutv

http://www.byutv.org...fires-of-faith#

I can understand the phraseology sounding biblical - especially as the BoM is a 'daughter of the Bible' (Bushman). I was wondering why Skousen thinks he has found phrases that are non-biblical AND dead by 19thC

[Gervin]

As said in previous posts, I don't consider the BoM to be a wholly man-made product. I'm unsure where God and man overlap, but agree this is not simply the product of his imagination. The botched attempts of James Strang to emulate the prophet model is a good example of what a 'man-made' scripture from the earth looks like (and yet, worryingly, many of Joseph's followers bought it). I guess hindsight is always 20:20.

I've always liked Thomas Donofrio's conclusion to his analysis of phraseology, that "the Book of Mormon is more sermon than history, more performance and imagination than proof, depending more on inspiration than on evidence. It is a sermon, a political speech, an allegory, and a mirror of the age in which it was produced."

It may not have been solely a product of "his [smith's] imagination" but I see it as certainly the product of "the" imagination, drawn from pre-existing language, phrases, and themes.