"doubting Thomas", And Doubting Peter, And Doubting Simon, And... "

[cinepro]

One of the most well-told Bible stories is that of Thomas the Apostle, who doubted the resurrection of Jesus when his fellow Apostles claimed to have seen him.  Upon Jesus' appearance, Thomas believes, and Jesus says that it is better to have believed without needing to have seen.

 

This is obviously an important point for Christianity (and Mormonism), because just about all the followers of the religion aren't going to see Jesus any time soon.

 

But there is an odd facet to this story that is discussed much less often.  Specifically, in the book of Mark, after the resurrected Jesus appeared to Mary, she reportedly went and told all of the assembled Apostles and none of them believed her.

 

This would seem to be the exact same situation faced by Thomas, and they didn't believe either until Jesus appeared to them.  So Thomas was no different than the other Apostles.

 

 

 9 ¶Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

 10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

 11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

 12 ¶After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

 13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

 14 ¶Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

Mark 16

So the next time someone tells you the story of "Doubting Thomas" (or, should you have wavering faith yourself, accuses you of being a "Doubting Thomas"), have them read Mark 16 and point out that Thomas was no different than the other Apostles, who also "doubted" until Jesus actually appeared to them.

Edited July 28, 2015 by cinepro

[bluebell]

I like how Jesus responds equally to both the group and to Thomas-letting them know that unbelief before a physical witness is not o.k.

 

It is interesting though how Mary get's the shaft in the story.  No one cares that a woman wasn't believed, but when it's Peter not being trusted, well, that they remember....

[ksfisher]

 

 

It is interesting though how Mary get's the shaft in the story.  No one cares that a woman wasn't believed, but when it's Peter not being trusted, well, that they remember....

 

Good point.  Hadn't thought of that before.

[stemelbow]

Depends on which version of the story you prefer. Thomas is said to have been a doubter thanks to John's account. Matt, Mark, and Luke all contradict John's account of Thomas by suggesting all the 11 were gathered when Jesus appeared.

This is all very interesting though. We put such stock in the scriptures but the unknown writers of the stories that were handed to them, via oral tradition, seemed less concerned about getting details right and more concerned about preaching agenda. But they are inspired. These days agenda means something in no way is inspired. I guess it's easy to ignore and forget how fallible our scriptures are having been composed by the fallible people who wrote them.

[stemelbow]

I like how Jesus responds equally to both the group and to Thomas-letting them know that unbelief before a physical witness is not o.k.

 

It is interesting though how Mary get's the shaft in the story.  No one cares that a woman wasn't believed, but when it's Peter not being trusted, well, that they remember....

'cept in John's account it wasn't Mary who was not believed. She reported the news to Peter and one other apostle, according to John's account. And they quickly ran to check...later when the disciples heard from her that Jesus appeared to her there was no indication that they didn't believe her at all. It seems quite the opposite, in fact.

We want to put all the accounts together and meld them, but they are contradictory. I don't think there's reason to read more into it then what we have.

[Gray]

Depends on which version of the story you prefer. Thomas is said to have been a doubter thanks to John's account. Matt, Mark, and Luke all contradict John's account of Thomas by suggesting all the 11 were gathered when Jesus appeared.

This is all very interesting though. We put such stock in the scriptures but the unknown writers of the stories that were handed to them, via oral tradition, seemed less concerned about getting details right and more concerned about preaching agenda. But they are inspired. These days agenda means something in no way is inspired. I guess it's easy to ignore and forget how fallible our scriptures are having been composed by the fallible people who wrote them.

 

All scripture is a response of humans to God, not the other way around. A simple idea with enormous explanatory power

[Bobbieaware]

All scripture is a response of humans to God, not the other way around. A simple idea with enormous explanatory power

But there can be no response to God unless God first prompts the response.

[Duncan]

That is one experience of Thomas', he had others so if we "judge" him we should look at all the evidence.

[Gray]

But there can be no response to God unless God first prompts the response.

 

Indeed. But God does not write scripture. The work of God is all around us. 

[stemelbow]

All scripture is a response of humans to God, not the other way around. A simple idea with enormous explanatory power

I agree. It drives me nuts thinking how poorly we, typically, miss the mark on this. Scripture does not do historicity. Its a record of stories orally told among peoples (often for centuries, sometimes for decades before being recorded) which, stories, help create tradition. They don't at all seem to be written to do much more than that. That's not to say they aren't useful or good. it's to say they aren't the definers of history, nor the definers of truth. They are to help and inspire us, so we too can grow closer to God and learn how to deal with life.

[Bobbieaware]

Indeed. But God does not write scripture. The work of God is all around us.

Again, you miss hitting the point squarely on the mark. We are told the young, unlearned Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. So while the Book of Mormon was not directly translated by the personages of either the Father or the Son, it's translation was made possible only by extraordinary spiritual gifts and powers from God that go far beyond human ability -- far beyond the ability of even the most learned and naturally gifted.among us. Without these extraordinary divine gifts and powers being graciously bestowed upon one of the "weak things of the world," there would be no Book of Mormon. The Lectures on Faith also tell us that the expression 'Spirit of God' is synonymous with 'Mind of God.' So while it may not have been God's actual hands, eyes, ears and voice that did the work of translation, it was the Mind of God inspiring young Joseph's mind and spirit that enabled an otherwise mere boy to bring forth the miraculous translation of the sacred writings of a fallen people who's voices spoke to him low out of the dust. A Humanistic explanation for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is a woefully deficient one: and the day will come when all willingly admit and confess that it this so.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Bobbieaware]

I agree. It drives me nuts thinking how poorly we, typically, miss the mark on this. Scripture does not do historicity. Its a record of stories orally told among peoples (often for centuries, sometimes for decades before being recorded) which, stories, help create tradition. They don't at all seem to be written to do much more than that. That's not to say they aren't useful or good. it's to say they aren't the definers of history, nor the definers of truth. They are to help and inspire us, so we too can grow closer to God and learn how to deal with life.

Your analysis may be accurate when it comes to portions of the Bible, but it isn't accurate when it comes to the Book of Mormon. The Nephites were meticulous written journal and record keepers.

[The Nehor]

Indeed. But God does not write scripture. The work of God is all around us. 

 

....but specifically not in the scriptures because he did not write them?

[Boanerges]

I agree with Cinepro's point, it is well taken. We also need to remember that all four gospels were written in retrospect and from a each writer's point of view.

 

Regarding Thomas, I have noted that none of the Apostles are mentioned frequently by name in the NT. Some are hardly mentioned at all and there is even some confusion about names and exactly who is who sometimes. Thomas is significantly mentioned in one other place in the NT, John 11 upon the death of Lazarus:

 

 

7 Then after that saith he to his disciples, Let us go into Judæa again.

8 His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?

9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.

10 But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.

11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.

12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.

13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.

14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

15 And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him.

16 Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellowdisciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.

 

Is the Thomas in verse 16 doubting?

 

I think it's sad that Thomas is labeled a doubter when in actuality, as Cinepro points out, he was really no different that the other Apostles.

[stemelbow]

Your analysis may be accurate when it comes to portions of the Bible, but it isn't accurate when it comes to the Book of Mormon. The Nephites were meticulous written journal and record keepers.

Why do you say that about "the Nephites"? Also how much do we really know about the translation through Joseph? not a lot, it seems to me. It's quite possible, as Richard Bushman suggested, the BoM, that which resulted from the inspired translation, seemed to have at least some input from Joseph's environment or perspective. This might suggest, in some way, the BoM as we have it is much like other scripture in that Joseph wrote it, through inspiration, of course, but less as a translation of Nephi's particular words, per se, and more as a retelling in a pseudepigrapha way.

I'm at a loss why the BoM should be considered better than the bible because of these possibilities.

[stemelbow]

I agree with Cinepro's point, it is well taken. We also need to remember that all four gospels were written in retrospect and from a each writer's point of view.

 

Regarding Thomas, I have noted that none of the Apostles are mentioned frequently by name in the NT. Some are hardly mentioned at all and there is even some confusion about names and exactly who is who sometimes. Thomas is significantly mentioned in one other place in the NT, John 11 upon the death of Lazarus:

 

 

Is the Thomas in verse 16 doubting?

 

I think it's sad that Thomas is labeled a doubter when in actuality, as Cinepro points out, he was really no different that the other Apostles.

Doubting isn't necessarily something to be sad about. We all doubt at some point. The story of a doubting Thomas, whether it is what really happened or not, can be useful in that it helps us understand we all doubt and we aren't heading to hell in a handbasket because we doubt.

[Bobbieaware]

Why do you say that about "the Nephites"? Also how much do we really know about the translation through Joseph? not a lot, it seems to me. It's quite possible, as Richard Bushman suggested, the BoM, that which resulted from the inspired translation, seemed to have at least some input from Joseph's environment or perspective. This might suggest, in some way, the BoM as we have it is much like other scripture in that Joseph wrote it, through inspiration, of course, but less as a translation of Nephi's particular words, per se, and more as a retelling in a pseudepigrapha way.I'm at a loss why the BoM should be considered better than the bible because of these possibilities.

Why do I say that about the Nephites? Have you never read the Book of Mormon and understood that its own writers testify that it is the product of written records on metal plates and not the result of "telephone game" oral traditions? How could anyone who's read the Book of Mormon miss the fact it's writers solemnly testify it's the product of carefully recorded written primary sources?

Forgive me if I'm just 'naive' enough to actually believe what the Lord says about the Book of Mirmon and not what some scholar who -- as scholars so often do -- overthinks things and looks beyond the mark.. Here's what the Lord says about the Book of Mormon:

6 But after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith, God ministered unto him by an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness;

7 And gave unto him commandments which inspired him;

8 And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon;

9 Which contains a record of a fallen people, and the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also;

10 Which was given by inspiration, and is confirmed to others by the ministering of angels, and is declared unto the world by them—

11 Proving to the world that the holy scriptures are true, and that God does inspire men and call them to his holy work in this age and generation, as well as in generations of old;

12 Thereby showing that he is the same God yesterday, today, and forever. Amen. (D&C 20)

Edited July 29, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[stemelbow]

Why do I say that about the Nephites? Have you never read the Book of Mormon and understood that its own writers testify that it is the product of written records on metal plates and not the result of "telephone game" oral traditions? How could anyone who's read the Book of Mormon miss the fact it's writers solemnly testify it's the product of carefully recorded written primary sources?

Thanks for responding, Bobbie. "We know the authors of the BoM recorded genuine history because they said so" does not, in the end, instill a great deal of confidence in me. It may you, but not me. Mostly because as we learn how scripture has come to the world we learn that people in writing scripture spoke as if they were Moses or Matthew when it doesn't appear Moses or Matthew were authors of the records we revere. That's not to say "in no way can we think the BoM as we have it was actually written by Nephi (at least the parts so claimed)" but it is to say another possibility is out there. Perhaps there was no Nephi but instead of Nephi it was Olbert. And say the story of Olbert was quite different from the story of Nephi but over years and as it passed from people to people it became Nephi's story. Now we can say, "well yeah, but Nephi's own English translated words say it was Nephi writing". They sure do, but then we have the record itself telling us it is Nephi's words because it says so. that'd be like someone saying, "I know the BOM is not scripture at all, because I say so".

Forgive me if I'm just 'naive' enough to actually believe what the Lord says about the Book of Mirmon and not what some scholar who -- as scholars so often do -- overthinks things and looks beyond the mark..

You are forgiven. But no need to condemn scholars in so disagreeing. It could be that you are off the mark and scholars are on it.

Here's what the Lord says about the Book of Mormon:

6 But after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith, God ministered unto him by an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness;

7 And gave unto him commandments which inspired him;

8 And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon;

9 Which contains a record of a fallen people, and the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also;

10 Which was given by inspiration, and is confirmed to others by the ministering of angels, and is declared unto the world by them—

11 Proving to the world that the holy scriptures are true, and that God does inspire men and call them to his holy work in this age and generation, as well as in generations of old;

12 Thereby showing that he is the same God yesterday, today, and forever. Amen. (D&C 20)

And one might say, "more accurately, this is Joseph Smith speaking on behalf of the LORD". this may be exactly true, and it may be very good with mistakes of men included.

[Bobbieaware]

Why do you say that about "the Nephites"? Also how much do we really know about the translation through Joseph? not a lot, it seems to me. It's quite possible, as Richard Bushman suggested, the BoM, that which resulted from the inspired translation, seemed to have at least some input from Joseph's environment or perspective. This might suggest, in some way, the BoM as we have it is much like other scripture in that Joseph wrote it, through inspiration, of course, but less as a translation of Nephi's particular words, per se, and more as a retelling in a pseudepigrapha way.I'm at a loss why the BoM should be considered better than the bible because of these possibilities.

As far as what Richard Bushman has to say: I'm wondering if it ever dawned on him that one of the reasons why the Book of Mormon appears to address 19th century issues is because Mormon, Moroni, Nephi, the Brother of Jared, and possibly others, we're all shown our day IN DETAIL and were therefore very familiar with the day, time, and societal & religious environment in which the Book of Mormon would come forth?

Here's what Mormon -- the great historian and actual abridger of the Book of Mormon -- has to say about this matter:

34 Behold, the Lord HATH SHOW UNTO ME great and marvelous things concerning that which must shortly come, AT THAT DAY WHEN THESE THINGS SHALL COME FORTH UNTO YOU ('you' meaning the 19th century Gentiles).

35 Behold, I speak unto you (the 19th century Gentiles) AS IF YE WERE PRESENT, and yet ye are not. But behold, JESUS CHRST HATH SHOWN YOU UNTO ME, AND I KNOW YOUR DOING. (Mormon 8. )

I wonder what Richard Bushman might have to say regarding his 19th century centered Book of Mormon perplexities vs a vis the obvious conclusions a faithful believer can reasonably conclude about the matter simply believing what's said in the above verses?

[stemelbow]

As far as what Richard Bushman has to say: I'm wondering if it ever dawned on him that one of the reasons why the Book of Mormon appears to address 19th century issues is because Mormon, Moroni, Nephi, the Brother of Jared, and possibly others, we're all shown our day IN DETAIL and were therefore very familiar with the day, time, and societal & religious environment in which the Book of Mormon would come forth?

Here's what Mormon -- the great historian and actual abridger of the Book of Mormon -- has to say about this matter:

34 Behold, the Lord HATH SHOW UNTO ME great and marvelous things concerning that which must shortly come, AT THAT DAY WHEN THESE THINGS SHALL COME FORTH UNTO YOU ('you' meaning the 19th century Gentiles).

35 Behold, I speak unto you (the 19th century Gentiles) AS IF YE WERE PRESENT, and yet ye are not. But behold, JESUS CHRST HATH SHOWN YOU UNTO ME, AND I KNOW YOUR DOING. (Mormon 8. )

I wonder what Richard Bushman might have to say regarding his 19th century centered Book of Mormon perplexities vs a vis the obvious conclusions a faithful believer can reasonably conclude about the matter simply believing what's said in the above verses?

it's an interesting thought, but I don't know it'd be wise to conclude that since they saw Joseph's day, or claimed to see it, that they understood the culture and issues of his day. With TV I can see lots of things from around the world, but seeing it doesn't quite give me a good detailed description of what the people are going through.

Perhaps Bushman has considered this many times realizing that seeing our day does not necessarily mean they understood us.

[Gray]

Again, you miss hitting the point squarely on the mark. We are told the young, unlearned Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. So while the Book of Mormon was not directly translated by the personages of either the Father or the Son, it's translation was made possible only by extraordinary spiritual gifts and powers from God that go far beyond human ability -- far beyond the ability of even the most learned and naturally gifted.among us. Without these extraordinary divine gifts and powers being graciously bestowed upon one of the "weak things of the world," there would be no Book of Mormon. The Lectures on Faith also tell us that the expression 'Spirit of God' is synonymous with 'Mind of God.' So while it may not have been God's actual hands, eyes, ears and voice that did the work of translation, it was the Mind of God inspiring young Joseph's mind and spirit that enabled an otherwise mere boy to bring forth the miraculous translation of the sacred writings of a fallen people who's voices spoke to him low out of the dust. A Humanistic explanation for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is a woefully deficient one: and the day will come when all willingly admit and confess that it this so.

 

I think we understand translation to mean inspired writings, yes?

 

I don't believe scripture works how you say - I don't think God literally puts words into people's minds to write down. Furthermore I can think of no question more irrelevant to someone's character than their opinion about the historicity of any particular book. 

[Gray]

....but specifically not in the scriptures because he did not write them?

 

Scripture writing is a human endeavor. Humans write books. To the extent that humans are a part of the oneness of God then scripture might also be understood in a sense to be "of God," but not in the way that fundamentalists tend to think.

 

At least, that's my opinion. 

[Gray]

Why do I say that about the Nephites? Have you never read the Book of Mormon and understood that its own writers testify that it is the product of written records on metal plates and not the result of "telephone game" oral traditions? How could anyone who's read the Book of Mormon miss the fact it's writers solemnly testify it's the product of carefully recorded written primary sources?

 

 

If the record keeping was meticulous and primary sources were really of concern to Nephites, then you can be sure that we're not discussing an authentically ancient record. These are modern, not ancient concepts that you're talking about. 

 

The BOM can either be authentically ancient or it can be an accurate history. It can't be both. 

Edited July 29, 2015 by Gray

[Bobbieaware]

Thanks for responding, Bobbie. "We know the authors of the BoM recorded genuine history because they said so" does not, in the end, instill a great deal of confidence in me. It may you, but not me. Mostly because as we learn how scripture has come to the world we learn that people in writing scripture spoke as if they were Moses or Matthew when it doesn't appear Moses or Matthew were authors of the records we revere. That's not to say "in no way can we think the BoM as we have it was actually written by Nephi (at least the parts so claimed)" but it is to say another possibility is out there. Perhaps there was no Nephi but instead of Nephi it was Olbert. And say the story of Olbert was quite different from the story of Nephi but over years and as it passed from people to people it became Nephi's story. Now we can say, "well yeah, but Nephi's own English translated words say it was Nephi writing". They sure do, but then we have the record itself telling us it is Nephi's words because it says so. that'd be like someone saying, "I know the BOM is not scripture at all, because I say so".You are forgiven. But no need to condemn scholars in so disagreeing. It could be that you are off the mark and scholars are on it.And one might say, "more accurately, this is Joseph Smith speaking on behalf of the LORD". this may be exactly true, and it may be very good with mistakes of men included.

I have a simpler faith that relies on revelation from the Holy Ghost, as per Moroni's promise, to receive and understand truth. By acting on Moroni's promise, and many other similar promises made in the scriptures, the Lord offers his saints an expressway to learning and understanding spiritual truth by the means of direct revelation; and I have learned for myself that the Lord's promises in this regard are true and faithful. Enjoy your more arduous scientifically-informed approach to discovering truth,

[jkwilliams]

I have a simpler faith that relies on revelation from the Holy Ghost, as per Moroni's promise, to receive and understand truth. By acting on Moroni's promise, and many other similar promises made in the scriptures, the Lord offers his saints an expressway to learning and understanding spiritual truth by the means of direct revelation; and I have learned for myself that the Lord's promises in this regard are true and faithful. Enjoy your more arduous scientifically-informed approach to discovering truth,

 

Setting aside the cheap shot, discovering truth shouldn't be easy. It should be a lifelong dedication, and yes, it should be arduous. I've never heard anyone say that following the spirit is easy, let alone receiving revelation.