Anachronicstic content in the Book of Mormon and Expansion Theory

[churchistrue]

(Typo in the thread title.  Can a mod fix it, please?)

I'm interested to hear this group's take on these articles I wrote, especially on the legitimacy within Orthodox Mormonism of the two models at the end of the second article.  I assume many of you here probably accept Ostler's expansion theory, or at least elements of it.  I'm interested what you think of the possibility of the "metaphorical/sacramental paradigm" theory, which accepts the Book of Mormon as a sacred work and legitimate scripture, yet rejects or is agnostic about the existence of gold plates and an actual ancient text.  Is this view acceptable in the church today?  As the trends continue with more people falling away due to historical issues and more members adopting these liberal views, do you envision a future where this will be acceptable view?

Part I, anachronistic "too 19th century sounding" content in the Book of Mormon, especially related to 2 Nephi 9 and the discussion of atonement.

http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/anachronistic-christian-doctrine-in-book-of-mormon/


Part 2, analysis of whether or not this is OK or whether it proves the Book of Mormon "false", with analysis of what Joseph meant when he said he "translated", and a couple theories to deal with this: Blake Ostler's Expansion Theory and a new theory I'm articulating based on liberal Christian scholar view of the Bible.


http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/book-of-mormon-modern-expansion-theory-midrash/

Edited March 23, 2016 by churchistrue

[Kevin Christensen]

As a 19th Century translation, rather than an untranslated transcription, given according to Joseph's own language and understanding, that he might come to understanding, I find myself not particularly fussed about 19th century language.  That's basically the point of translation.

As far as the Expansion Theory goes, it should be noted that Blake's thought on the topic did not come to an end in 1987.   He allowed me to quote him in a 2004 essay:

As new evidence surfaces indicating that primary ideas previously thought to be Christian were in fact excised from the preexilic text, the content of the plates rather than Joseph Smith’s midrashic expansion should grow. In my original article, I suggested, for example, that the phraseology of secret societies in the Book of Mormon seemed to be nineteenth century—it turns out that a lot of what I suggested was nineteenth century may well be explainable in terms of ancient counterparts. By the way, I don’t credit Vogel’s theory with any explanatory ability at all—the Book of Mormon does not discuss a Mound-Building culture, and nothing that Vogel has said, even at great length and verbosity, persuades me in the least that the Book of Mormon was addressing the Mound Builders in any way—not even in the sense that they were discussed in the nineteenth century. He’s just off the mark in my view.¹⁷⁵

I wanted to comment on Vogel’s potshot that the expansion theory of the Book of Mormon is ad hoc. A theory is ad hoc if it is not indicated or supported by any evidence but is merely an explanatory device to save a theory from its own problems. However, Vogel hasn’t made any attempt to account for the evidence of an ancient source that I discussed. He hasn’t provided anything like an adequate explanation of the covenant renewal festivals that are rather clearly present in the Book of Mormon. He hasn’t even discussed the Hebrew judicial procedures that are accurately presented in Abinadi’s trial and in Samuel the Lamanite’s prophetic lawsuit against the Nephites. He has failed altogether to discuss the prophetic call form that I identified. It is easy to call a theory ad hoc if one simply ignores all the evidence that disagrees with one’s own position, as Vogel does. His own theory—that Joseph Smith drew on the nineteenth-century culture for Primitivist Christian elements and on Mound-Building theories in particular—is extremely weak and doesn’t even begin to account for the contrary evidence that others and I have discussed. His judgments are based on his own blinders. I arrived at my theory after taking a look at the evidence and asking what kind of explanation is necessary to explain what I see. In my view, that is how theories are developed. Vogel, on the other hand, started from the commitment that the Book of Mormon had to be a nineteenth-century work and simply went looking for anything that would support his prejudices (that is also a problem with eisegesis).¹⁷⁶

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1458&index=14

And personally, I think Margaret Barker's work on First Temple Theology render's most of the concerns about the Book of Mormon being "too Christian before Christ" obsolete.  This from me,

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1459&index=4

And this from Margaret provide a peek.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/Atonement.pdf

Plus, I think it's important in your presentation to be specific about what got changed and why, and not just toss around numbers and being careless about what you imply.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1454&index=12

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[churchistrue]

13 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

As a 19th Century translation, rather than an untranslated transcription, given according to Joseph's own language and understanding, that he might come to understanding, I find myself not particularly fussed about 19th century language.  That's basically the point of translation.

As far as the Expansion Theory goes, it should be noted that Blake's thought on the topic did not come to an end in 1987.   He allowed me to quote him in a 2004 essay:

As new evidence surfaces indicating that primary ideas previously thought to be Christian were in fact excised from the preexilic text, the content of the plates rather than Joseph Smith’s midrashic expansion should grow. In my original article, I suggested, for example, that the phraseology of secret societies in the Book of Mormon seemed to be nineteenth century—it turns out that a lot of what I suggested was nineteenth century may well be explainable in terms of ancient counterparts. By the way, I don’t credit Vogel’s theory with any explanatory ability at all—the Book of Mormon does not discuss a Mound-Building culture, and nothing that Vogel has said, even at great length and verbosity, persuades me in the least that the Book of Mormon was addressing the Mound Builders in any way—not even in the sense that they were discussed in the nineteenth century. He’s just off the mark in my view.¹⁷⁵

I wanted to comment on Vogel’s potshot that the expansion theory of the Book of Mormon is ad hoc. A theory is ad hoc if it is not indicated or supported by any evidence but is merely an explanatory device to save a theory from its own problems. However, Vogel hasn’t made any attempt to account for the evidence of an ancient source that I discussed. He hasn’t provided anything like an adequate explanation of the covenant renewal festivals that are rather clearly present in the Book of Mormon. He hasn’t even discussed the Hebrew judicial procedures that are accurately presented in Abinadi’s trial and in Samuel the Lamanite’s prophetic lawsuit against the Nephites. He has failed altogether to discuss the prophetic call form that I identified. It is easy to call a theory ad hoc if one simply ignores all the evidence that disagrees with one’s own position, as Vogel does. His own theory—that Joseph Smith drew on the nineteenth-century culture for Primitivist Christian elements and on Mound-Building theories in particular—is extremely weak and doesn’t even begin to account for the contrary evidence that others and I have discussed. His judgments are based on his own blinders. I arrived at my theory after taking a look at the evidence and asking what kind of explanation is necessary to explain what I see. In my view, that is how theories are developed. Vogel, on the other hand, started from the commitment that the Book of Mormon had to be a nineteenth-century work and simply went looking for anything that would support his prejudices (that is also a problem with eisegesis).¹⁷⁶

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1458&index=14

And personally, I think Margaret Barker's work on First Temple Theology render's most of the concerns about the Book of Mormon being "too Christian before Christ" obsolete.  This from me,

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1459&index=4

And this from Margaret provide a peek.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/Atonement.pdf

Plus, I think it's important in your presentation to be specific about what got changed and why, and not just toss around numbers and being careless about what you imply.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1454&index=12

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Thanks.  Did you read the first article on the Christian dialogue in 2 Nephi 9?  Do you see that as Joseph translating the content exactly as Jacob wrote it, maybe relying on Joseph's vocabulary and known phrases but not altering the actual content?  Or do you see that as an expansion, like Ostler would likely see it?  Anyway, I'm not here to argue BOM historicity. I know I'm not going to convince anyone away from that, nor would I want to.  I'm curious what you think of the viability of these theories.  And generally a review of my articles.

 

[thesometimesaint]

I can't speak for the Church or anyone else but myself. However IMNTBHO such a belief is inconsistent with being a faithful LDS.

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I can't speak for the Church or anyone else but myself. However IMNTBHO such a belief is inconsistent with being a faithful LDS.

To me, being a faithful LDS has nothing to do with my historical beliefs regarding the BoM, and more to do with my faith in the Savior and the covenants that I have made.

Edited March 23, 2016 by pogi

[churchistrue]

41 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

 

Plus, I think it's important in your presentation to be specific about what got changed and why, and not just toss around numbers and being careless about what you imply.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1454&index=12

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

PS, thanks for this. I got that feedback from another person as well.

[thesometimesaint]

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

To me, being a faithful LDS has nothing to do with my historical beliefs regarding the BoM, and more to do with my faith in the Savior and the covenants that I have made.

Just depends on what those "historical beliefs" are. Without the historical Iehites a book of those Lehites becomes problematic.

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

IMNTBHO

For the life of me I can't figure out what this means.

[Calm]

In my not so humble opinion with a typo?

[Calm]

In my never to be humble opinion...free dictionary

[pogi]

57 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Without the historical Iehites a book of those Lehites becomes problematic.

It only becomes problematic to those who hold a historical view of the book.  It would not be problematic to my faith in the Savior, the restoration, or my covenants if I did not hold such a view. 

I personally lean towards a historical view of the book, but I find no grounds to question the faith of other's who do not hold such views. 

Edited March 23, 2016 by pogi

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It only becomes problematic to those who hold a historical view of the book.  It would not be problematic to my faith in the Savior, the restoration, or my covenants if I did not hold such a view. 

I personally lean towards a historical view of the book, but I find no grounds to question the faith of other's who do not hold such views. 

I would not question their faith, but their intelligence.  

If the BOM is not historical -->> no Mormon, no Moroni, no angel Moroni to show the plates, no plates (nobody wrote on the plates), the eleven witnesses were lying, JS was lying about the angel Moroni and the plates.  Christ did not appear to the inhabitants of America, no second witness for Christ.

BUT I still have faith in Joseph Smith as a prophet, and the Book of Mormon as scripture, even though the whole thing is built on a tissue of deception and lies.  At least I don't have to trouble my pea-sized brain about horses, wheels, etc etc, so everything is copacetic.

Edited March 23, 2016 by cdowis

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I would not question their faith, but their intelligence.  

Thankfully, our IQ will not be judged.  I can't tell you how many times I have questioned someones intelligence, only to find out later that I was the ignorant one. 

I have heard fairly reasonable (though slightly contrived, in my opinion) arguments for all of your points.  If it works for them, and doesn't turn them from Christ or the Church, I have no problems with it. 

Edited March 23, 2016 by pogi

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, churchistrue said:

In one of your articles, you say:

Quote

I applaud “traditional view” LDS apologists who do work to attempt to show that Christian doctrine was known anciently, to show precedent for the Book of Mormon. They try to make connections between the Book of Mormon and ancient writings, be it Biblical or other ancient non-biblical writings such as the Dead Sea Scrolls or Apochrypha.  But in the information age, and with history and science advancements making “traditional view” Mormon apologetics more and more difficult, it’s time we embrace new perspectives.

 

Actually it is the work of non-Mormon scholars which provides the most modern perspective on this, notably that by Dr. Margaret Barker, a Methodist preacher and theologian.  Moreover, based on modern scholarship, particularly that by Jews studying the intertestamental literature, it becomes increasingly clear that accusations that the BofM was "Christianizing" the OT is nonsense.

[churchistrue]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually it is the work of non-Mormon scholars which provides the most modern perspective on this, notably that by Dr. Margaret Barker, a Methodist preacher and theologian.  Moreover, based on modern scholarship, particularly that by Jews studying the intertestamental literature, it becomes increasingly clear that accusations that the BofM was "Christianizing" the OT is nonsense.

What does this mean exactly?  Not following you.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

What does this mean exactly?  Not following you.

You are referring to my statement that "it becomes increasingly clear that accusations that the BofM was 'Christianizing' the OT is nonsense. "

Perhaps you have not seen the articles with that word in the title, and perhaps you have not read recent Jewish scholarship making Jesus out to be very much in line with intertestamental literature, e.g., the messianism of Qumran.  It turns out that finding NT references in the OT only means that one was part of the older Jewish tradition, and that such references are to be expected -- not only there, but in the Book of Mormon as well.

Do you have any idea what I am talking about?

[churchistrue]

42 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are referring to my statement that "it becomes increasingly clear that accusations that the BofM was 'Christianizing' the OT is nonsense. "

Perhaps you have not seen the articles with that word in the title, and perhaps you have not read recent Jewish scholarship making Jesus out to be very much in line with intertestamental literature, e.g., the messianism of Qumran.  It turns out that finding NT references in the OT only means that one was part of the older Jewish tradition, and that such references are to be expected -- not only there, but in the Book of Mormon as well.

Do you have any idea what I am talking about?

I guess you're talking about the same kind of stuff Kevin Christensen was earlier. My question to you then is the same follow up question I had for him. 

[rodheadlee]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Thankfully, our IQ will not be judged.  I can't tell you how many times I have questioned someones intelligence, only to find out later that I was the ignorant one. 

I have heard fairly reasonable (though slightly contrived, in my opinion) arguments for all of your points.  If it works for them, and doesn't turn them from Christ or the Church, I have no problems with it. 

D&C 130

18 Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.

  19 And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.

[Nevo]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

based on modern scholarship, particularly that by Jews studying the intertestamental literature, it becomes increasingly clear that accusations that the BofM was "Christianizing" the OT is nonsense.

Increasingly clear to who? As far as I can tell, modern scholarship hasn't come close to validating the Book of Mormon's portrayal of pre-exilic Jews, ca. 600 BCE, worshipping "Jesus Christ"—who, they aver, is the "Savior . . . [and] Redeemer of the world," "the Lamb of God who should take away the sins of the world," saving mankind from their "lost and . . . fallen state," born of Mary, a virgin of Nazareth, "the mother of God after the manner of the flesh." This divine figure is to be baptized in Bethabara by an initially reluctant prophet, whereupon the heavens would open and the Holy Ghost would descend in the form of a dove. Also, he would have twelve disciples, multitudes would gather to hear him, and he would heal the sick and cast out devils. Finally, he would be rejected by those at Jerusalem and be "lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world." What does all of this mean for us? Well, we are informed that men must "follow Jesus" and be baptized in his name, for "there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God."

What other Jews talked this way in the 6th century, 5th century, 4th century, 3rd century, 2nd century, or even the 1st century BCE?

Edited March 24, 2016 by Nevo

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, churchistrue said:

(Typo in the thread title.  Can a mod fix it, please?)

I'm interested to hear this group's take on these articles I wrote, especially on the legitimacy within Orthodox Mormonism of the two models at the end of the second article.  I assume many of you here probably accept Ostler's expansion theory, or at least elements of it.  I'm interested what you think of the possibility of the "metaphorical/sacramental paradigm" theory, which accepts the Book of Mormon as a sacred work and legitimate scripture, yet rejects or is agnostic about the existence of gold plates and an actual ancient text.  Is this view acceptable in the church today?  As the trends continue with more people falling away due to historical issues and more members adopting these liberal views, do you envision a future where this will be acceptable view?

Part I, anachronistic "too 19th century sounding" content in the Book of Mormon, especially related to 2 Nephi 9 and the discussion of atonement.

http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/anachronistic-christian-doctrine-in-book-of-mormon/


Part 2, analysis of whether or not this is OK or whether it proves the Book of Mormon "false", with analysis of what Joseph meant when he said he "translated", and a couple theories to deal with this: Blake Ostler's Expansion Theory and a new theory I'm articulating based on liberal Christian scholar view of the Bible.


http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/book-of-mormon-modern-expansion-theory-midrash/

Saw your post, and I agree with it.  Been saying that stuff for a while

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

As a 19th Century translation, rather than an untranslated transcription, given according to Joseph's own language and understanding, that he might come to understanding, I find myself not particularly fussed about 19th century language.  That's basically the point of translation.

As far as the Expansion Theory goes, it should be noted that Blake's thought on the topic did not come to an end in 1987.   He allowed me to quote him in a 2004 essay:

As new evidence surfaces indicating that primary ideas previously thought to be Christian were in fact excised from the preexilic text, the content of the plates rather than Joseph Smith’s midrashic expansion should grow. In my original article, I suggested, for example, that the phraseology of secret societies in the Book of Mormon seemed to be nineteenth century—it turns out that a lot of what I suggested was nineteenth century may well be explainable in terms of ancient counterparts. By the way, I don’t credit Vogel’s theory with any explanatory ability at all—the Book of Mormon does not discuss a Mound-Building culture, and nothing that Vogel has said, even at great length and verbosity, persuades me in the least that the Book of Mormon was addressing the Mound Builders in any way—not even in the sense that they were discussed in the nineteenth century. He’s just off the mark in my view.¹⁷⁵

I wanted to comment on Vogel’s potshot that the expansion theory of the Book of Mormon is ad hoc. A theory is ad hoc if it is not indicated or supported by any evidence but is merely an explanatory device to save a theory from its own problems. However, Vogel hasn’t made any attempt to account for the evidence of an ancient source that I discussed. He hasn’t provided anything like an adequate explanation of the covenant renewal festivals that are rather clearly present in the Book of Mormon. He hasn’t even discussed the Hebrew judicial procedures that are accurately presented in Abinadi’s trial and in Samuel the Lamanite’s prophetic lawsuit against the Nephites. He has failed altogether to discuss the prophetic call form that I identified. It is easy to call a theory ad hoc if one simply ignores all the evidence that disagrees with one’s own position, as Vogel does. His own theory—that Joseph Smith drew on the nineteenth-century culture for Primitivist Christian elements and on Mound-Building theories in particular—is extremely weak and doesn’t even begin to account for the contrary evidence that others and I have discussed. His judgments are based on his own blinders. I arrived at my theory after taking a look at the evidence and asking what kind of explanation is necessary to explain what I see. In my view, that is how theories are developed. Vogel, on the other hand, started from the commitment that the Book of Mormon had to be a nineteenth-century work and simply went looking for anything that would support his prejudices (that is also a problem with eisegesis).¹⁷⁶

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1458&index=14

And personally, I think Margaret Barker's work on First Temple Theology render's most of the concerns about the Book of Mormon being "too Christian before Christ" obsolete.  This from me,

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1459&index=4

And this from Margaret provide a peek.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/Atonement.pdf

Plus, I think it's important in your presentation to be specific about what got changed and why, and not just toss around numbers and being careless about what you imply.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1454&index=12

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I find Vogel to be a very dualist thinker who has little tolerance for ambiguity.  It's his way or the highway.

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I can't speak for the Church or anyone else but myself. However IMNTBHO such a belief is inconsistent with being a faithful LDS.

Totally disagree,  IMO it is the only explanation that makes sense.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Just depends on what those "historical beliefs" are. Without the historical Iehites a book of those Lehites becomes problematic.

One can believe in historical Lehites as a religious proposition if one needs to , and not a scientifically objective historical position.

For me belief in historical Lehites is on a par with belief in God.  It is a religious belief, not a scientific one

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, Nevo said:

What other Jews talked this way in the 6th century, 5th century, 4th century, 3rd century, 2nd century, or even the 1st century BCE?

The answer may lie in Matt 2 [23] And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

This is an important prophecy regarding the Messiah that was available up to the Christian era, but possibly was purged by the Jewish hierarchy.  The NT gives us clues that there are missing prophetic texts regarding the Messiah.  The BOM makes mention of those "plain and precious things" which had been removed.

It appears that history was re-written to expunge any reference to those "Jews who talked this way".  

Edited March 24, 2016 by cdowis

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Nevo said:

Increasingly clear to who? As far as I can tell, modern scholarship hasn't come close to validating the Book of Mormon's portrayal of pre-exilic Jews, ca. 600 BCE, worshipping "Jesus Christ"—who, they aver, is the "Savior . . . [and] Redeemer of the world," "the Lamb of God who should take away the sins of the world," saving mankind from their "lost and . . . fallen state," born of Mary, a virgin of Nazareth, "the mother of God after the manner of the flesh." This divine figure is to be baptized in Bethabara by an initially reluctant prophet, whereupon the heavens would open and the Holy Ghost would descend in the form of a dove. Also, he would have twelve disciples, multitudes would gather to hear him, and he would heal the sick and cast out devils. Finally, he would be rejected by those at Jerusalem and be "lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world." What does all of this mean for us? Well, we are informed that men must "follow Jesus" and be baptized in his name, for "there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God."

What other Jews talked this way in the 6th century, 5th century, 4th century, 3rd century, 2nd century, or even the 1st century BCE?

The obvious answer is that this pre-exilic knowledge was not gained by study or reading existing scriptures, but rather by personal revelations to Lehi and his descendants intended for their people only. This would be a problem only if Joseph had not attributed it to visions, dreams, and revelations. In my opinion, this stregthens the case for the BoM.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Bernard Gui