Finding "New Spirituality In The Book Of Mormon"

[wenglund]

uh, no. physical acts are symbolic 'deed for word'. Physical deeds matter to those who require physical evidence in order to sustain their faith. As all are at different levels of faith, then physical acts are entirely appropriate.

I can see how you might view progress in faith as consisting of moving from dependency on the physical for faith to reliance on the symbolic for the same. This is not unlike what is being discussed in another thread titled, "Literalism, The Gospel, and the Perry Scheme,"

And, in a way and to some extent I agree with your perspective.

However, as I indicated in that thread, we may be inadvertently looking at this in black/white terms (whether one may be either too literalistic or too figurative) or linear terms (progress from one to the other), whereas it may be that we should be engaged in both, or involve a combination of both. "I find that I am able to see rich layers of meaning within the scriptures by looking not only with my child-like literalistic eyes, but also with my adult symbolic eyes." And, I get more by seeing and doing both the physical and the symbolic and by believing in the historicity as well as the spiritual meaning of the scriptures. This may be what others have been getting at in this thread.

As I am coming to understand things, physical ordinances like baptism and laying on of hand and ordinations to the priesthood, while unarguably symbolic, they aren't purely symbolic, but literally affects a material change. In other words, the physical actions, themselves, and not just the symbolism of the physical act, impact the soul, and this beyond what the symbolism of the physical act may do on its own. In spiritual terms, borrowing from scripture, it is not unlike the difference between dreaming about eating at a banquet, and actually physically eating.

I believe this principle applies to more than just physical ordinance (such as receiving the keys of the priesthood from Peter, James, and John), but also may factor into beliefs about the historicity of the Book of Mormon. For what it is worth...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 21, 2013 by wenglund

[wayfarer]

I know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God because the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to me that it is the word of God, not because it is canonized. There are non-canonized material which I know to be the word of God; and there are canonized material which I know isn't the word of God. I knew that D&C 137 and 138 were true scripture long before they were canonized, and treated them as such. Likewise, there are uncanonized revelations in existence today which I consider and know to be the word of God. Canonization is important, however, because we trust the vehicle though which it is made, which is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is God's authorized representative on earth to make that determination; and for the purpose teaching the Church, that is the authorized and recognized canon that should be used. The Church as the Lord's official representative on earth has the divine mandate to declare what is canon and what is not. I can determine what is scripture by the Holy Spirit, but I cannot determine what is the canon. Only the Church has the power and authority from God to do that, and make it binding on the whole Church.

I would go with what you say above, and appreciate you saying it. The problem only might come into whether your selected "word of God" scriptures are indeed the same as mine or anyone elses.

I think we can all agree that any rules in scripture condoning slavery or being happy that our enemies children are being smashed against the rocks -- that these things are clearly not 'The word of God', and probably never were. I think we can all agree that "a new commandment I give unto, that ye love one another" is clearly in the set of "word of God". There may be even some areas where "I know not, save the Lord commanded me."

Question: do we get ourselves in trouble when we think our personally-selected definition of "word of God" differs from other, faithful Saints?

[wayfarer]

I can see how you might view progress in faith as consisting of moving from dependency on the physical for faith to reliance on the symbolic for the same. This is not unlike what is being discussed in another thread titled, "Literalism, The Gospel, and the Perry Scheme,"

And, in a way and to some extent I agree with your perspective.

However, as I indicated in that thread, we may be inadvertently looking at this in black/white terms (whether one may be either too literalistic or too figurative) or linear terms (progress from one to the other), whereas it may be that we should be engaged in both, or involve a combination of both. "I find that I am able to see rich layers of meaning within the scriptures by looking not only with my child-like literalistic eyes, but also with my adult symbolic eyes." And, I get more by seeing and doing both the physical and the symbolic and by believing in the historicity as well as the spiritual meaning of the scriptures. This may be what others have been getting at in this thread.

As I am coming to understand things, physical ordinances like baptism and laying on of hand and ordinations to the priesthood, while unarguably symbolic, they aren't purely symbolic, but literally affects a material change. In other words, the physical actions, themselves, and not just the symbolism of the physical act, impact the soul, and this beyond what the symbolism of the physical act may do on its own. In spiritual terms, borrowing from scripture, it is not unlike the difference between dreaming about eating at a banquet, and actually physically eating.

I believe this principle applies to more than just physical ordinance (such as receiving the keys of the priesthood from Peter, James, and John), but also may factor into beliefs about the historicity of the Book of Mormon. For what it is worth...

I think that is a pretty cool way of putting it -- that there is some aspect of this, physical as it may be, that is at play here. The physical side may well correspond to Doctrine and Covenants 131 where all things have a material basis. So, as far as ordinances are concerned, I have often felt that there is a tangible something that happens to my spirit when receiving a laying on of hands to receive a calling or a blessing. Yet, I'm not quite sure how that applies to a literal belief in the existence of specific book of mormon characters or events.

[wayfarer]

You have a lot more faith than I can muster about "empirical facts". They seem to change at least as much as revelations do. Now how many planets are there this week? I keep forgetting.

The definitions change, but pluto's existence did not. One thing that we can be assured of, there are no mortal or immortal people living on the sun or the moon, and man did indeed plant his feet on the moon in defiance of a 'prophecy' of sorts.

Let's say your child has a severe emotional disorder, including tourette's. You go for the priesthood to cast out devils. It doesn't work. Shouldn't you consider that today, medical science may have a more effective solution to such mental disorders than "revelation" or "prophecy" can offer? What would be the consequence if a parent failed to avail him or herself of competent, scientific medical support to solve a simple bacterial infection that, untreated was fatal. The parents, seeking and receiving a blessing, heard that the child would fully recover, thus they, having faith, chose not to go to a doctor?

I believe that JFK's assassination was a conspiracy. I saw the oliver stone movie and felt something powerfully tell me that it was true. Shall we trust my judgment on this matter?

But how do you know that?

We are back to Moroni 10 and Alma 32!

You know it is the word of God because it is canonized and God has told you the church is true!

I certainly hope you don't mean that you make an inductive blanket aggregate assertion that all things taught by the church or are in scripture are true just because the church is true.... please say you don't make that inductive leap.

Edited February 21, 2013 by wayfarer

[mfbukowski]

I know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God because the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to me that it is the word of God, not because it is canonized. There are non-canonized material which I know to be the word of God; and there are canonized material which I know isn't the word of God. I knew that D&C 137 and 138 were true scripture long before they were canonized, and treated them as such. Likewise, there are uncanonized revelations in existence today which I consider and know to be the word of God. Canonization is important, however, because we trust the vehicle though which it is made, which is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is God's authorized representative on earth to make that determination; and for the purpose teaching the Church, that is the authorized and recognized canon that should be used. The Church as the Lord's official representative on earth has the divine mandate to declare what is canon and what is not. I can determine what is scripture by the Holy Spirit, but I cannot determine what is the canon. Only the Church has the power and authority from God to do that, and make it binding on the whole Church.

OK so you lean on Moroni more than Alma. Good for you. I would have said good for you if it was the other way around also.

The main point is that you know what you believe and why you believe it- you have reasoned it through and believe you have confirmations for it all. Just remember to allow others to do the same!

[mfbukowski]

As I am coming to understand things, physical ordinances like baptism and laying on of hand and ordinations to the priesthood, while unarguably symbolic, they aren't purely symbolic, but literally affects a material change. In other words, the physical actions, themselves, and not just the symbolism of the physical act, impact the soul, and this beyond what the symbolism of the physical act may do on its own. In spiritual terms, borrowing from scripture, it is not unlike the difference between dreaming about eating at a banquet, and actually physically eating.

Unquestionably! And they allow us to directly feel the spirit flowing into our bodies from sources outside of us.

In talking about how language was insufficient to express direct experience, William James talked about the difference between reading a menu and eating a steak.

I thought that was an incredible analogy. It is the difference between being immersed in the reality of experience and talking about it later.

Can language express "what really happened" even when you just eat a meal? Not even close!

[wenglund]

I think that is a pretty cool way of putting it -- that there is some aspect of this, physical as it may be, that is at play here...

That's kind of you to say.

...Yet, I'm not quite sure how that applies to a literal belief in the existence of specific book of mormon characters or events.

This, to me, is where things start to get real interesting, though wildly speculative. If we, personally, can be materially impacted by physical actions in which we are directly involved (like sacred ordinances), then isn't it possible that we, individually and collectively, may be materially impacted by what others may or may not do--and this even across time and space?

I am not just talking about things like if my great-grandparents had never procreated I would not have been born into the family that I was and my life may have been materially different for me, or even the notion of the sins of the fathers being visited on the children, or the sneeze of a butterfly in Africa eventually resulting in hurricane in the Caribbean. I am also speaking in an indirect sense.

For example, if Christ physically existed and physically atoned for our sins and opened the way for salvation and exaltation, to me his physical actions have more than a symbolic impact on my soul today. I believe I have been and will continue to be materially impacted in ways that transcend my symbolic understanding of what occurred. What he physically did then I believe, and have experienced, has materially impacted me today.

Likewise, it not only means more to me if BoM people were real and BoM events actually occurred than if it were all fictional (while I may be inspired by the travails of Harry Potter, I am more inspired by Lincoln's biography), but I believe I experience an actual material connection to those real people and events which materially changes me (voices from the dust). It's like the difference I experience between watching Downton Abbey and a WWII documentary, or reading a Marvel comic book and looking at pictures of my ancestors.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 21, 2013 by wenglund

[wayfarer]

This, to me, is where things start to get real interesting, though wildly speculative. If we, personally, can be materially impacted by physical actions in which we are directly involved (like sacred ordinances), then isn't it possible that we, individually and collectively, may be materially impacted by what others may or may not do--and this even across time and space?

I am not just talking about things like if my great-grandparents had never procreated I would not have been born into the family that I was and my life may have been materially different for me, or even the notion of the sins of the fathers being visited on the children, or the sneeze of a butterfly in Africa eventually resulting in hurricane in the Caribbean. I am also speaking in an indirect sense.

i thought it was flapping of a butterfly's wings in brazil...but i see where you're going here.

Likewise, it not only means more to me if BoM people were real and BoM events actually occurred than if it were all fictional (while I may be inspired by the travails of Harry Potter, I am more inspired by Lincoln's biography), but I believe I experience an actual material connection to those real people and events which materially changes me (voices from the dust). It's like the difference I experience between watching Downton Abbey and a WWII documentary, or reading a Marvel comic book and looking at pictures of my ancestors.

I can completely relate to what you're saying, and it makes almost no logical sense...but i agree...go figure. i have felt that connection as i have walked through ruins, or considered the voices of those prophets long ago. the term "connection" is very important here. I would agree that it is there, but i have no explanation for it.

[wenglund]

i thought it was flapping of a butterfly's wings in brazil...but i see where you're going here.

I can completely relate to what you're saying, and it makes almost no logical sense...but i agree...go figure. i have felt that connection as i have walked through ruins, or considered the voices of those prophets long ago. the term "connection" is very important here. I would agree that it is there, but i have no explanation for it.

Perhaps super string theory is heading us in the right direction, or at least it could give us an analogous conceptual framework to somewhat account for the workings of the realm of spirits. Who knows? At this point I am okay with not being able to explain the whole connectedness (comprehensively or otherwise), and have contented myself in being pleased with simply experiencing the blessed connections.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 21, 2013 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

i thought it was flapping of a butterfly's wings in brazil...but i see where you're going here.

You are both totally wrong.

It was a hummingbird in Greenland. Everyone knows that. THAT IS A FACT

[mfbukowski]

The definitions change, but pluto's existence did not.

I can tell you all kinds of things about unicorns, which means that they also, in a sense, "exist". The word has a definition, I can tell you what color they are, their approximate size, stories about what they have done, etc. We humans have an extensive cultural deposit of stories about both.

"Existence" is a pretty useless word really. Does courage "exist"? Does the Higgs Boson particle "exist"?

The apparent discovery of the Higgs boson particle last year has opened doors to new calculations that weren't previously possible, scientists say, including one that suggests the universe is in for a cataclysm billions of years from now.

"It may be the universe we live in is inherently unstable, and at some point billions of years from now it's all going to get wiped out," Joseph Lykken, a theoretical physicist at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill., said Monday (Feb. 18) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science

http://news.yahoo.com/why-higgs-boson-may-seal-fate-universe-115810396.html

How likely is this to "actually happen" and how much should I worry about it?

Is any of this "real" at all? We don't even know if the Higgs Boson "particle", or whatever word describes it, even "exists", yet this is SCIENCE so of course it is about things which are hard and fast and are FACTS- right?

It is about things which are REAL after all, yet the existence of God, WHO IS VERY REAL IN MY LIFE is relegated to the same dustbin as unicorns.

[wayfarer]

It is about things which are REAL after all, yet the existence of God, WHO IS VERY REAL IN MY LIFE is relegated to the same dustbin as unicorns.

I can't argue with that. not in the least. but I'm not sure that's the same as someone making an empirical conclusion on the same basis.

Let's say I have a spiritual manifestation that my stock portfolio will double tomorrow. I'm sure of it. I have a testimony of it. I go buy a house this evening double the size of my current house, because my spiritual manifestations are the highest form of reality for me.

You see my point?

[canard78]

Of course, if God revealed a pious fiction to JS to produce the BOM, why couldn't God have just as easily revealed a pious reality about something else? Like other teachings of Jesus in Judea? There is not a reason in the universe that God would reveal fiction about Jesus to try to convince people about the reality of Jesus. God is not a lunatic.

Because the 19th environment was ripe for a history of the native Americans.

By the way, I do wonder why you're so often aggressive in your responses. Your tone seems to speak louder than your message. I'm referring to the "Incoherent nonsense" comment (and many others on this board).

[canard78]

One of the most brilliant prophetic explanations of why things were done in a way that today we think is wrong was given by GBH in an interview: "Because that's how the leaders of the time interpreted the will of the Lord."

I was about to CFR this. Not because I doubted it was said, but because I wanted a source to re-quote it.

Here we go:

From the 60 Minutes interview, broadcast 7th April 1996:

Mike Wallace: From 1830 to 1978, blacks could not become priests in the Mormon church. Right?

Gordon B. Hinckley: That's correct.

Mike Wallace: Why?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Because the leaders of the church at that time interpreted that doctrine that way

Transcribed by Robert J. Woolley here: links to the endowment are not permitted

Edited February 24, 2013 by Nemesis

[volgadon]

Let's say your child has a severe emotional disorder, including tourette's. You go for the priesthood to cast out devils. It doesn't work. Shouldn't you consider that today, medical science may have a more effective solution to such mental disorders than "revelation" or "prophecy" can offer? What would be the consequence if a parent failed to avail him or herself of competent, scientific medical support to solve a simple bacterial infection that, untreated was fatal. The parents, seeking and receiving a blessing, heard that the child would fully recover, thus they, having faith, chose not to go to a doctor?

Why should one not do both?

[MormonMason]

...

Those who insist that there is no evidence for the Book of Mormon seem to me to have overlooked a great deal.

...

I'm inclined to agree. I have been fascinated by Egyptian themes and usages in the Book of Mormon. I see them as consistent with the nature of the book. But where would Joseph Smith have gotten such ideas in an age when nobody could read Egyptian? God as a heavenly gatekeeper (not a Bible idea but one found in a Pyramid Text I read last year), genuine Egyptian names (including some that have only been discovered years after the publication of the Book of Mormon, such as Ani and Anti), epistles that read like an Egyptian official letter, use of phrases not attested in Hebrew but attested in Egyptian ("in other words" and "and so forth"), etc.... Most of the evidences of the Book of Mormon are internal but they are evidences nonetheless, in my eyes.

Edited February 23, 2013 by MormonMason

[canard78]

I'm inclined to agree. I have been fascinated by Egyptian themes and usages in the Book of Mormon. I see them as consistent with the nature of the book. But where would Joseph Smith have gotten such ideas in an age when nobody could read Egyptian? God as a heavenly gatekeeper (not a Bible idea but one found in a Pyramid Text I read last year), genuine Egyptian names (including some that have only been discovered years after the publication of the Book of Mormon, such as Ani and Anti), epistles that read like an Egyptian official letter, use of phrases not attested in Hebrew but attested in Egyptian ("in other words" and "and so forth"), etc.... Most of the evidences of the Book of Mormon are internal but they are evidences nonetheless, in my eyes.

I wonder whether there are internal parallels to Egypt in nearly any book of over 500 pages? Are there Egyptian parallels (a few?) in the Lord of the Rings? Or Harry Potter?

If there are internal parallels between the 19th C and the Book of Mormon text are they also evidences against? For example, why does Mormon quote Jesus as saying the exact same message to his American disciples as we find in the King James Version of the New Testament (the one Joseph had access to)? More still, why do most Bible scholars consider this passage of Mark to be an interpolation by a scribe in the 2nd or 3rd Century? How can the Book of Mormon contain a passage that most churches now recognise to be 'not what He actually said.'

More here:

Alternatively, if we find similar language or interactions with God in 19thC Methodist sermons or hymns as in the Book of Mormon is that evidence against? Like: "Kindly he opes to me his ear, And bids me pour my sorrows there, And tell him all my pains : Thus while I ease my burthen'd heart." and "...that I might pour out my soul unto my God, because of the exceeding sorrow of my heart, which is because of your iniquities." From what I can find, this is the only verse in all scripture that talks about pouring out to God because of your sorrows.

Or is this all just coincidence in language? If it's just coincidence in language (which I accept it probably is... there are, after all, only a limited number of words in the English language)... then how can a few Egyptian words be evidence of the Book of Mormon's origins?

1830 hymnal:

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=E3u1ilbyQ1oC&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&authuser=0&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA11

[Kevin Christensen]

It's not just a matter of parallels, but of the notion that Brant Gardner takes from William Dever. Convergences. Not disconnected, random lists, which can easily be coincidental. But mutually dependent details. Not just Nahom, but Nahom in 600 BCE related to the directions to the only spot on the Arabian penninsula that fits in detail the description of Bountiful. Not just a city of cement in the New World, but one at the right time depth and relative location. Not just that the detailed description of the Sidon fits with only one river in the Western Hemisphere, but that reading the Book of Mormon stories against that specific geographic context makes sense of other details in the text. (See Larry Poulson for specific details, and John Clark for big picture convergence.) Not just open problems, but of a general tendency towards resolution of problems over time.

I've read Price's essay in American Apocrypha. He begins by discussing the notion of pious fraud using the example of Deuteronomy as the "Book of the Law" found in the temple by Josiah. That is is paradigm-defining example, wrapping up a method, problem field, and standard of solution. So he looks at Joseph Smith as doing what he thinks that Josiah's mentors did.

Kuhn points out that “the decision to employ a particular piece of apparatus and to use it in a particular way carries an assumption that only certain sorts of circumstances will arise.”^[1] Price takes a critical apparatus—in this case, a particular view of the account of the finding of the Book of the Law in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles—and he suggests using it in a particular way, as a model of pious fraud, a map guiding his approach to the Book of Mormon. In this essay he seems, like some LDS commentators, “to approach the text of the Book of Mormon already knowing, from sources exterior to the text, both the questions and the answers.”[2]

[1] Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 59.

[2] Louis Midgley, “Prophetic Messages or Dogmatic Theology? Commenting on the Book of Mormon: A Review Essay” in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon,” 1 (1989) 107.

But what Price doesn't do is consider that if Lehi actually lived, he would have been an eye-witness to the reforms, and the Book of Mormon therefore, a window into what really happened. When Price finally gets around to discussing anything in the Book of Mormon, he sees Joseph Smith as running other stories through a shedder and assembling them into new narratives. From Price, in American Apocrypha, 356-7:

So to return to the main point, the story in 3 Nephi collapses the two-fold story of the authorization of the original Twelve into a single continuous story directly linking the choosing of the Nephite Twelve with their pentacost^[1]

First, in 3 Nephi 19, we find clear borrowings from the Synoptic Transfiguration narratives (there being none in John’s Gospel since there Jesus is practically transfigured from page one): “And it came to pass that Jesus blessed them as they did pray unto him; and his countenance did smile upon them, and behold, they were white, even as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold there could be nothing upon the earth so white as the whiteness thereof” (3 Ne. 19:25). In verses 31-34, we learn that Jesus went on to pray to the Father in glossolalic utterances beyond the capacity of mere humans to relate or record. It is a moment of epiphany like that of Paul, swept up to the Third Heaven in 2 Corinthians 12:1-10. The same set of elements recur later on in the sequel to this scene in 3 Nephi 28. Jesus, in a last dialogue with the Nephite apostles before his final ascension—the whole scene being strikingly reminiscent of the Nag Hammadi Gnostic text, the Apocryphon of James, wherein Jesus has ascended from the Mount of Olives and returned before reascending for good---bids each one make whatever request he wishes.^[2]

[1] Price, 352-53.

[2] Price, 356-7. Compare Hugh Nibley, “Jesus Among the Ruins.” In The Prophetic Book of Mormon CWHN 8 (Salt Lake City and Provo, Deseret Book and F.A.R.M.S., 1989), 407-434, which compares 3 Nephi to various Old World “40 Day” accounts. Also compare Kirster Stendahl, “The Sermon on the Mount and Third Nephi” in Truman G. Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism: Judeo-Christian Parallels (Provo: Religious Studies Center, 1978), 139 to 154, which presented a similar interpretation, and also generated insightful responses, also relevant to Price. See Richard L. Anderson, “Imitation Gospels and Christ’s Book of Mormon Ministry” in C. Wilfred Griggs, ed., Apocryphal Writings and the Latter-day Saints (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1986), 53-107, and in John W. Welch, Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount (Provo, FARMS, 1999).

It happens that all of the themes of authority, transfiguration and ascent that Price mentions in his discussion of 3 Nephi also come forward quite naturally in comparing the Book of Mormon to Barker’s work on the Jerusalem 600 BCE context and the First Temple tradition. The very issues that Price sees as evidence of Joseph Smith’s cut and paste method turn out to belong together in the 3 Nephi temple setting.

For example, Barker writes that

it makes a great deal of difference to our picture of the Messiah in the New Testament, if the name had formerly meant the anointed one who enjoyed the presence of God and had the status of an angel. In the pattern beginning to emerge, the vision of God was linked to knowledge, to judgement, to ascent, and to angelic status, and all these were linked to the anointed one. All these come through as a pattern in early Christian thought.

The ascent visions were associated with the temple and its rituals.^[1]

[1] See Barker, The Lost Prophet, 54

What grows from an individual's study of the Book of Mormon is highly dependent on how they treat the seed, how serious they nurture, the context in which they place it, their degree of personal committment. When Margaret read the Book of Mormon, rather than starting from an assumption that it was a pious fraud like Deuteronomy, she started from her knowledge of the Jerusalem 600 BCE background, and simply asked whether the Book of Mormon fits that picture.

Do the revelations to Joseph Smith fit in that context—the reign of King Zedikiah, who is mentioned at the beginning of the First Book of Nephi? King Zedikiah [a son of Josiah] was installed in Jerusalem in 597 BCE.)

I think is is fascinating that Price, who had read and favorably reviewed The Great Angel, does not even imagine asking this question.

Alan Goff observes:

Literary critics have come to realize that readers always apply one interpretive theory or another as they read. The critical reader will be aware of the theory choice and how it affects interpretation. Theory choices close off certain interpretive avenues and open up others. One powerful influence affecting interpretation is the reader’s ideology. Even a reader who asserts freedom from an ideology is applying one uncritically.[1]

[1] Alan Goff, “How Then Should We Read? Reading Scripture After the Fall”, FARMS Review 21/1 (2009) p 169.

Arguments about how easy it should be to find a Lamanite always hinge on how a person defines a Lamanite. And how literally we should take the allegory of the Olive tree when it says the branches have to be grafted on to something. And if the word shifts very early on in the Book of Mormon to be a convenient way to say "not us" Those who think they are boldly facing facts are quite often blind to the implications of their own ideology's determination of what they percieve, where they look, and how they measure.

I do like Mark Thomas' essay on Moroni as the final voice. It's a fine bit of analysis. Very spiritual. But I've also read Gordon Thomasson's and Lisa Bowlin Hawkins's essay on "Survivor Witness in the Book of Mormon." And there I learn things that Thomas doesn't even imagine about Mormon and Moroni living, breathing witnesses, as real. I though Price's essay was entertaining, but in comparison to Barker's essay, it turns out to be very revealing.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited February 23, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[MormonMason]

I wonder whether there are internal parallels to Egypt in nearly any book of over 500 pages? Are there Egyptian parallels (a few?) in the Lord of the Rings? Or Harry Potter?

Apples and Oranges. For one thing, both of these works were written after many things became known about Egypt and Egyptian languages. And, I would expect parallels although I have not looked for any in these works. J.K Rowling borrowed sporadically from late 19th century magical milieu to compose her work. R.R. Tolkien was a linguist as well as an author. I suspect that it might be more consistent to look in literary works predating 1830 or contemporary for examples rather than later works like the two you mentioned. If you find some do let us know.

Joseph Smith, on the other hand, was not a linguist at the time the Book of Mormon was published and in that day no one in America knew Egyptian or enough about the culture to supply such information to Joseph Smith. It is a certainty that he could not read Egyptian on his own. Yet, he has more than a few genuine Egyptian names which are constructed correctly. Usages in the underlying text also are correct. Even the name Irreantum, although thought by some perhaps to be derived from South Semitic, may well have an Egyptian derivation. An phrase constructed with genuine Egyptian words actually means very much like the interpretation Nephi gives it in the Book of Mormon. Ir r ntw m apparently means "more than all bodies of water." Compare that to Nephi's interpretation: "many waters." No one until modern times knew of an Egyptian word ntw (w pronounced like 'u' or 'oo') that seemed to mean "bodies of water" and nobody at that time even knew that in some later Egyptian texts an 'm' monosyllabic character carried a sense of "all." Many today still don't know this. Must just be a lucky guess.

If there are internal parallels between the 19th C and the Book of Mormon text are they also evidences against? For example, why does Mormon quote Jesus as saying the exact same message to his American disciples as we find in the King James Version of the New Testament (the one Joseph had access to)? More still, why do most Bible scholars consider this passage of Mark to be an interpolation by a scribe in the 2nd or 3rd Century? How can the Book of Mormon contain a passage that most churches now recognise to be 'not what He actually said.'

More here:

http://www.mormondia...ark-16mormon-9/

You are assuming that the teachings contained in the added text are actually not authentic teachings of Christ preserved from a very old tradition. Your claim about the age of this text being as much as 200 years later is a canard. The Gospel of Mark that Irenaeus quoted from had it and he quoted it circa 180 CE. That is somewhere around 110 years at most. Probably less considering that he himself read it in a pre-existing text that likely was copied from another long before him. Justin Martyr also had a Greek text that had this longer ending. He lived earlier than Irenaeus. It is an ending occurring in Western text family texts and elsewhere.

But, even Westcott and Hort (at the forefront of the movement to remove the verses as authentically part of Mark) were not willing to jettison the verses entirely even though they considered it a late addition to Mark and placed it within double brackets. They were of the opinion that it likely came from an old historical source from apostolic times due to its structure and completeness. In their opinions it was not something that a scribe would simply make up to fill a gap. Even though not likely an original part of the Gospel of Mark, it is equally likely to preserve a genuine record of genuine teachings and sayings of Christ.

You can read Westcott and Hort's discussion on the verses in the appendix to their Introduction and Appendix volume that is part and parcel of their two-volume The New Testament in the Original Greek. How can we prove that these last verses of Mark do not preserve a genuine record from another source of Jesus' words? We cannot. In any case, I have no problem with text reading like the long ending being there, particularly since we have no proof that the record that ended up being attached to Mark as a later addition from another source is not also a correct record of Jesus' teachings on these matters.

Alternatively, if we find similar language or interactions with God in 19thC Methodist sermons or hymns as in the Book of Mormon is that evidence against? Like: "Kindly he opes to me his ear, And bids me pour my sorrows there, And tell him all my pains : Thus while I ease my burthen'd heart." and "...that I might pour out my soul unto my God, because of the exceeding sorrow of my heart, which is because of your iniquities." From what I can find, this is the only verse in all scripture that talks about pouring out to God because of your sorrows.

Or is this all just coincidence in language? If it's just coincidence in language (which I accept it probably is... there are, after all, only a limited number of words in the English language)... then how can a few Egyptian words be evidence of the Book of Mormon's origins?

1830 hymnal:

https://play.google....=en&pg=GBS.PA11

Looking at the source, I lean toward coincidence of language for your hymnal example. By the way, try Psalm 42 in the KJV. This has a close mental connection even though the phraseology is not precise. This source is as good as the other one so far as potential sources go. Neither is an exact match, so far as potential postulated sources go.

My tears have been my meat day and night, while they continually say unto me, Where

is

thy God?

When I remember these

things

,I pour out my soul in me

: for I had gone with the multitude, I went with them to the house of God, with the voice of joy and praise, with a multitude that kept holyday. (Psalm 42:3-4, KJV)

Here is another example of similar phraseology from Psalm 62:8:

Trust in him at all times;

ye

people, pour out your heart before him

: God

is

a refuge for us. Selah.

And, it is not just a few Egyptian words these days. It used to be a few words--years ago--but the number keeps growing and the usages of some of them are consistent with Egyptian practice with names similarly constructed. It turns out that names like Ani-Anti and Anti-Nephi-Lehi are such examples in the proper usage of Anti in an Egyptian name, whether personal or as a place name. Compare that to genuinely Egyptian place name Anti-Set. Lehi is a Hebrew name. Both Anti and Nephi are Egyptian names, even though occurrence of a name spelled Nephi in the Apocrypha is an accidental coincidence of language. Both have Egyptian significance. But, these by no means are the only ones. And, it should be expected that there would be a number of Egyptian names in a record that claims to have been written in the language of the Egyptians with the learning of the Jews.

Edited February 23, 2013 by MormonMason

[canard78]

Apples and Oranges. For one thing, both of these works were written after many things became known about Egypt and Egyptian languages. And, I would expect parallels although I have not looked for any in these works. J.K Rowling borrowed sporadically from late 19th century magical milieu to compose her work. R.R. Tolkien was a linguist as well as an author. I suspect that it might be more consistent to look in literary works predating 1830 or contemporary for examples rather than later works like the two you mentioned. If you find some do let us know.

Joseph Smith, on the other hand, was not a linguist at the time the Book of Mormon was published and in that day no one in America knew Egyptian or enough about the culture to supply such information to Joseph Smith. It is a certainty that he could not read Egyptian on his own. Yet, he has more than a few genuine Egyptian names which are constructed correctly. Usages in the underlying text also are correct. Even the name Irreantum, although thought by some perhaps to be derived from South Semitic, may well have an Egyptian derivation. An phrase constructed with genuine Egyptian words actually means very much like the interpretation Nephi gives it in the Book of Mormon. Ir r ntw m apparently means "more than all bodies of water." Compare that to Nephi's interpretation: "many waters." No one until modern times knew of an Egyptian word ntw (w pronounced like 'u' or 'oo') that seemed to mean "bodies of water" and nobody at that time even knew that in some later Egyptian texts an 'm' monosyllabic character carried a sense of "all." Many today still don't know this. Must just be a lucky guess.

Fair point about Tolkein and Rowling. What about Chaucer or the Mabinogion? Have you ever seen the Lincoln/Kennedy coincidence list? And yet it only works because you have to ignore all the other non-coincidences. So Irreantum is Egyptian, Sebus is Babylonian and Timothy is Greek (hang on?)

You are assuming that the teachings contained in the added text are actually not authentic teachings of Christ preserved from a very old tradition. Your claim about the age of this text being as much as 200 years later is a canard. The Gospel of Mark that Irenaeus quoted from had it and he quoted it circa 180 CE. That is somewhere around 110 years at most. Probably less considering that he himself read it in a pre-existing text that likely was copied from another long before him. Justin Martyr also had a Greek text that had this longer ending. He lived earlier than Irenaeus. It is an ending occurring in Western text family texts and elsewhere.

But, even Westcott and Hort (at the forefront of the movement to remove the verses as authentically part of Mark) were not willing to jettison the verses entirely even though they considered it a late addition to Mark and placed it within double brackets. They were of the opinion that it likely came from an old historical source from apostolic times due to its structure and completeness. In their opinions it was not something that a scribe would simply make up to fill a gap. Even though not likely an original part of the Gospel of Mark, it is equally likely to preserve a genuine record of genuine teachings and sayings of Christ.

You can read Westcott and Hort's discussion on the verses in the appendix to their Introduction and Appendix volume that is part and parcel of their two-volume The New Testament in the Original Greek. How can we prove that these last verses of Mark do not preserve a genuine record from another source of Jesus' words? We cannot. In any case, I have no problem with text reading like the long ending being there, particularly since we have no proof that the record that ended up being attached to Mark as a later addition from another source is not also a correct record of Jesus' teachings on these matters.

I find it ironic that as LDS we usually go to great lengths that the Bible is not a perfect book and needs companions. But a part with strong evidence that it's unoriginal (strong enough that BYU's Blummel agrees) needs to defended as genuine because if not it would undermine the Book of Mormon (for some people). The passage has internal problems. Why did Nephi3 not mention it? Why is it only mentioned 200+ years later (an interesting parable... Or coincidence). Why do both the Mark and Mormon passages both contain a word-identical promise that is nowhere else in scripture and is never reinforced (Believers can pick up snakes and drink poison)?

What are the odds of Mormon recording it identically to a version that was interpolated, re-copied through the ages and translated in the 1600s?

I am not arguing for the Book of Mormon as a fraud. I'm saying there's lots of strong evidence for a very loose translation, which means we should probably let go of some of the internal, linguistic evidences in favour.

Looking at the source, I lean toward coincidence of language for your hymnal example. By the way, try Psalm 42 in the KJV. This has a close mental connection even though the phraseology is not precise. This source is as good as the other one so far as potential sources go. Neither is an exact match, so far as potential postulated sources go.

My tears have been my meat day and night, while they continually say unto me, Where

is

thy God?

When I remember these

things

,I pour out my soul in me

: for I had gone with the multitude, I went with them to the house of God, with the voice of joy and praise, with a multitude that kept holyday. (Psalm 42:3-4, KJV)

Here is another example of similar phraseology from Psalm 62:8:

Trust in him at all times;

ye

people, pour out your heart before him

: God

is

a refuge for us. Selah.

And, it is not just a few Egyptian words these days. It used to be a few words--years ago--but the number keeps growing and the usages of some of them are consistent with Egyptian practice with names similarly constructed. It turns out that names like Ani-Anti and Anti-Nephi-Lehi are such examples in the proper usage of Anti in an Egyptian name, whether personal or as a place name. Compare that to genuinely Egyptian place name Anti-Set. Lehi is a Hebrew name. Both Anti and Nephi are Egyptian names, even though occurrence of a name spelled Nephi in the Apocrypha is an accidental coincidence of language. Both have Egyptian significance. But, these by no means are the only ones. And, it should be expected that there would be a number of Egyptian names in a record that claims to have been written in the language of the Egyptians with the learning of the Jews.

I agree, I think the hymnal parallel is no more than a coincidence. Were the psalms on the brass plates? Maybe, but I don't think they're mentioned in 1 Nephi 5. In fact, David is only mentioned in Isaiah chapters and by Jacob as a bad example of a husband.

If we're going to follow parallels, we have to be willing to accept both and explore them. There are as many parallels in place names to upstate New York as there are to the Middle East.

Again, none of this proves the book is not divine. But it provides evidence that the translated version might have more of an (inspired) Joseph in it than some think.

As such, if someone wants to fully disbelieve it's historical origins and still find spiritual guidance I can understand why and I say more power to them. I still see some historical value in the claims, but as a very loose translation/inspired dictation.

(Sorry for any typos, on my phone)

[volgadon]

Why do both the Mark and Mormon passages both contain a word-identical promise that is nowhere else in scripture and is never reinforced (Believers can pick up snakes

Try Acts 28.

And when they were escaped, then they knew that the island was called Melita.

² And the barbarous people shewed us no little kindness: for they kindled a fire, and received us every one, because of the present rain, and because of the cold.

³ And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.

⁴ And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.

⁵ And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.

⁶ Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

[mfbukowski]

I can't argue with that. not in the least. but I'm not sure that's the same as someone making an empirical conclusion on the same basis.

Let's say I have a spiritual manifestation that my stock portfolio will double tomorrow. I'm sure of it. I have a testimony of it. I go buy a house this evening double the size of my current house, because my spiritual manifestations are the highest form of reality for me.

You see my point?

No because you would be a fool to think that way.

Testimonies are not about facts or how to get ahead in human terms. You may be guided to do something temporally which will lead you to make a decision which will develop you spiritually but God doesn't tell you how to make a million bucks unless that will teach you a spiritual principle.

All he cares about is your spiritual development- that is all that is important to him.

[canard78]

Try Acts 28.

And when they were escaped, then they knew that the island was called Melita.

² And the barbarous people shewed us no little kindness: for they kindled a fire, and received us every one, because of the present rain, and because of the cold.

³ And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.

⁴ And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.

⁵ And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.

⁶ Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

I didn't want to draw attention to that... but that actually compounds the problem. It makes it more likely that someone compiling a 'wrap up' to Mark would feel inclined to promise forward to stories already 'in print.' A sort of "look, he said his true believers would be able to pick up snakes and stuff... and Paul did." And yet now we think these guys are a bit barmy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_handling#Snake_handling_churches

[volgadon]

I didn't want to draw attention to that... but that actually compounds the problem. It makes it more likely that someone compiling a 'wrap up' to Mark would feel inclined to promise forward to stories already 'in print.' A sort of "look, he said his true believers would be able to pick up snakes and stuff... and Paul did." And yet now we think these guys are a bit barmy: http://en.wikipedia....ndling_churches

I think it is barmy to deliberately pick up snakes like those guys do, but the actual promise is not barmy in the slightest.

[MormonMason]

Fair point about Tolkein and Rowling. What about Chaucer or the Mabinogion? Have you ever seen the Lincoln/Kennedy coincidence list? And yet it only works because you have to ignore all the other non-coincidences. So Irreantum is Egyptian, Sebus is Babylonian and Timothy is Greek (hang on?)

I highly doubt it. I've read Chaucer and seem to recall no Egyptian themes. I have seen the coincidence list. I used to have a Lincoln/Kennedy coin attached to a paper with the coincidences. I have no idea what happened to it. It is likely now a collectors item. At any rate, it is not just the words themselves but whether or not they would have been available in the area/culture whence the book came and if the usage is correct.

Irreantum may be Egyptian (or even possibly also South Semitic if the conjecture be close; the distance between Egypt and Yemen is not all that far) but Sebus is not Babylonian (wrong ending). It is a hypothetical Aramaic. Timothy is Greek but it may also have been Joseph's choice to use that where there may have been a Hebrew Heqar'el. It may also be a genuine Greek name known in Lehi's time. I have discussed the names issue elsewhere. It's not a big deal.

I find it ironic that as LDS we usually go to great lengths that the Bible is not a perfect book and needs companions. But a part with strong evidence that it's unoriginal (strong enough that BYU's Blummel agrees) needs to defended as genuine because if not it would undermine the Book of Mormon (for some people). The passage has internal problems. Why did Nephi3 not mention it? Why is it only mentioned 200+ years later (an interesting parable... Or coincidence). Why do both the Mark and Mormon passages both contain a word-identical promise that is nowhere else in scripture and is never reinforced (Believers can pick up snakes and drink poison)?

It would seem that you misunderstand me. I also agree with Blummel that the long ending of Mark is not genuine Mark. However, we also have to remember that the four Gospels are not the only Gospels that existed at the earliest times. My view is that the long ending of Mark came from one of these now lost, early Gospels.

Internal problems? Please be specific. Just because it was not cited there in an earlier passages is meaningless in the context of the Book of Mormon. There are a number of things quoted from Christ that are not mentioned earlier in the Book of Mormon.

There are other passages in the Bible that do lend weight to the authenticity of the context of the passage rather than to whether or not it belonged in authentic Mark. Paul took up a serpent that had bitten him and he did not die. Jesus in Luke tells the disciples they will have power to tread on serpents without hurt. In addition, old traditions abound that a Roman Emperor tried to poison John and it failed to kill him so he banished John to Patmos. Same with Matthias. He was poisoned, didn't die, and a ruler became so outraged by that happenstance that he beheaded him instead.

Just because it is not authentic Mark does not in itself prove that the record itself is an inauthentic written record of a small portion of the 40-day teachings of Christ. You seem to think that it is invalidated by virtue of its having been added to Mark by scribes. It was added to Mark but it came from a documentary source. That we have lost that original source invalidates nothing. Could Christ have taught similar words in the New World? Certainly he could have. Since Joseph Smith's vocabulary was KJV English as well, I see no problem with him using such words to represent what was on the plates. By the way, the passages are not word-for-word identical, as you have claimed. There are slight differences. They may not be entirely significant differences but there are differences in verbiage nonetheless, so we know it was not a slavish copying.

What are the odds of Mormon recording it identically to a version that was interpolated, re-copied through the ages and translated in the 1600s?

Given that the vocabulary of Joseph Smith was steeped in the KJV, pretty good. Have you ever read the Ante-Nicene Fathers? Numerous passages from the Bible quoted by the Fathers are cast in nearly word-for-word identical KJV Bible quotes. We know that the early writers would not have used the KJV. So, what are the odds that the Ante-Nicene Fathers would have been "recorded...identically to a version that was interpolated, re-copied through the ages and translated in the 1600s?" It was Joseph's choice and prerogative to use the KJV verbiage in the translation of the Book of Mormon just as it was for the academic translators of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. It is quite a common practice, and especially so in the 19th century.

I am not arguing for the Book of Mormon as a fraud. I'm saying there's lots of strong evidence for a very loose translation, which means we should probably let go of some of the internal, linguistic evidences in favour.

There is evidence for a variety of approaches, including a functional approach. Some of the examples of linguistic evidences fit in with nearly literal translation and tight translation. When we find a growing number of Egyptian examples and a lot of Hebraic examples (I am not discussing Chiasmus here, by the way) that are correctly used, what are the odds of a backwoods farm-boy with no academic linguistic education would get these right? We are not talking about a few examples here and there but a book filled with such things.

I agree, I think the hymnal parallel is no more than a coincidence. Were the psalms on the brass plates? Maybe, but I don't think they're mentioned in 1 Nephi 5. In fact, David is only mentioned in Isaiah chapters and by Jacob as a bad example of a husband.

If we're going to follow parallels, we have to be willing to accept both and explore them. There are as many parallels in place names to upstate New York as there are to the Middle East.

Again, none of this proves the book is not divine. But it provides evidence that the translated version might have more of an (inspired) Joseph in it than some think.

At least some of the Psalms likely were written by that time. Just because they are not mentioned does not mean that they were not there. there was a lot in the old plates of brass that were not mentioned in that brief example you used. The only way that there would have been knowledge about David at all is if there were some history not mentioned before. It is the same in numerous places in the Book of Mormon. We only know that the Bible of that time contained more than what we now have because the Book of Mormon and Bible both say so.

Sure, we can look at both but we also must not be careless enough to take 19th century parallels and multiply them upon a false basis and bad methodology.

As such, if someone wants to fully disbelieve it's historical origins and still find spiritual guidance I can understand why and I say more power to them. I still see some historical value in the claims, but as a very loose translation/inspired dictation.

I can see that point of view but I disagree with it for much of the Book of Mormon. New evidence is being found on an ongoing basis, using scholarly materials that have only been published in relatively modern and directly modern times. No one anywhere in America could have been aware of Egyptian themes to put them into the Book of Mormon. No one could have known that the elements of Irreantum were Egyptian words or that Egyptian ntw (likely pronounced entu or antu) meant "bodies of water." People didn't even know that until a few years ago and that not widely.

That the Book of Mormon nailed it by providing a very close functional interpretation "many waters" to the phrase's Egyptian meaning of "more than all bodies of water" ought to give pause. In combination with other evidences, it adds weight to the proposition that the Book of Mormon really is what it is claimed to be--an ancient record translated into English.

Edited February 24, 2013 by MormonMason