Anachronicstic content in the Book of Mormon and Expansion Theory

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

Except his theory that the plates were really made of tin. He is wrong on that one.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Nevo said:

Increasingly clear to who?

To non-Mormon scholars who have been writing about the general subject for decades now.  Some examples:

Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God (Westminster John Knox, 1992).

James Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, First Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins (Fortress, 1992).

James Charlesworth, "Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha and the Book of Mormon," in T. G. Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian Parallels (BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978; reprinted by FARMS CHA-78), 99-137.

John J. Collins, "A Pre-Christian 'Son of God' Among the Dead Sea Scrolls," Bible Review, 9/3 (June 1993):34-38,57.

Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (Fortress, 1988).

Donald H. Juel, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Fortress, 1992).

 Israel Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls, trans. D. Maisel, S. Mark Taper Foundation Book in Jewish Studies  (Berkeley: U.C. Press, 2000).

Israel knohl, “‘By Three Days, Live’: Messiahs, Resurrection, and Ascent to Heaven in Hazon Gabriel,” Journal of Religion, 88/2 (April 2008):147-158

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."

A very good summary by you here, and no longer absurd for modern scholarship, or for G. F. Handel in composing his libretto for "The Messiah."  After all, Isaiah was the favorite, most quoted prophet by Jesus.  For you that may indeed be nonsense, since you do not read the scholarly literature.

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

Claude G. Montefiore, "What a Jew Thinks About Jesus," Hibbert Journal, 33/4 (July 1935):516, and Montefiore, The Old Testament and After (London: Macmillan, 1923), 229, saw Jesus as  "a sort of eighth-century prophet born out of season," and as a man who "occupies the remarkable position of resuming the work and role of the prophets.  He is in genuine succession to Amos and Isaiah."

 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, churchistrue said:

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. 

You mean your question 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? "

For those of us who have done extensive translating, we recognize a wide range of choices when translating phrases.  We can follow a nearly word for word rendering, or we can opt for a dynamic equivalence.  The American Bible Society (and most modern translators) prefers the dynamic equivalence, and trains translators to do that in order to obtain the most accurate translations.  Poorly educated people naturally think that word for word translations are the best, never realizing the violence that does to the ideas being expressed.

Without having available the original Book of Mormon plates, it is very difficult to know which method of translation was employed.  Moreover, Skousen and Carmack claim that Joseph did not do the translation into English -- something done in Early Modern English centuries before his birth.

[churchistrue]

7 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?

That sounds pretty condemning (not to the church or Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon, but to a theory of ancient book with pure translation), but what is even more convincing I think is not just the topics, ie the bullet point items you just listed, are anachronistic but also the phraseology and logic used to define and defend these topics are straight from the modern world.  This is the point I make in the first of the articles I linked.  We have ancient prophets jumping into a modern argument between Calvinists and Arminians on whether the atonement is limited or infinite, using the same NT scriptures expounded out with 17th-19th century phrases and logic to support the position.  It seems very difficult for Robert Smith and Kevin Christensen to appeal to some very vague Christology references Barker likes to make and wave their hands and say, it's all their in ancient Israel, no problem.  In M. Russell Ballard's words: these outdated explanations are not going to cut it anymore.  We're bleeding members.  Let's move forward.

 

[Kevin Christensen]

10 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?

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1121&index=12 On the Lamb of God in PreChristian Texts.

On the equivalence of the Servant and the Lamb:

Barker also places emphasis on the figures of the servant in the Old Testament and the Lamb of God in the New Testament.

    Wordplay was characteristic of the prophets and visionaries. The Aramaic word tly’ can mean either ‘Lamb’ or ‘Servant.’ . . . John the Baptist identified Jesus as the Lamb of God (John 1:29), by which he must have meant the Servant.10

    Most of the evidence for the Servant is found in the prophecies of Isaiah. There are four passages, usually known as the Servant Songs, which describe him (Isaiah 42:1–4; 49:1–4; 50:4–9 and 52:13–53:12).11

    The Lamb is the key figure in the Book of Revelation and the Servant is the key figure in other parts of the New Testament. Jesus is depicted as the Servant. At the baptism, Jesus heard the voice from heaven speaking the words of the first Servant Song: ‘Thou art my beloved son, with thee I am well pleased’ (a version of Isaiah 42:1, quoted in Mark 1:11). John the Baptist identified Jesus as the Lamb, but Jesus himself heard the words of the Servant Song. . . . A glance at these examples will show that they come from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and Peter, that is, from all the major authors of the New Testament. Jesus as the Servant was not a minority viewpoint, but the original claim of the Christians.12

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2694&index=6 from my Paradigms Regained.

Barker on Temple Theology:

Temple theology is the original context of the New Testament insofar as the hopes, beliefs, symbols and rituals of the temple shaped the lives of those who came to be called Christians. Temple theology knew of incarnation and atonement, the sons of God and the life of the age to come, the day of judgement, justification, salvation, the renewed covenant and the kingdom of God. When temple theology is presented, even in its barest outline, its striking relevance to the New Testament becomes clear. (Margaret Barker, On Earth as It Is in Heaven: Temple Symbolism in the New Testament (Edinburgh: Clark, 1995), ix.)

Barker explains how

    Isaiah 53 could have been inspired by the Day of Atonement ritual. A few points must suffice.

        “He shall startle many nations” (Isa. 52.15); yazzeh, the apparently untranslatable verb, means “sprinkle” in the atonement ritual (Lev. 16.19). The Servant figure does not “startle” many peoples; the original Hebrew says he “sprinkles.”
        The Servant “carries” the people’s sicknesses or weaknesses (Isa. 53.4).
        The Servant has been wounded for their transgressions. Wounded, hll, is a word which carries both the meanings required by Mary Douglas’s theory of atonement, viz. to pierce or to defile.
        “Upon him was the chastisement that made us whole” (Isa. 53.5b) can also be translated “The covenant bond of our peace was his responsibility.” “With his stripes, hbrt, we are healed” would then become “By his joining us together we are healed,” forming a parallel to mwsr, covenant bond. The primary meaning of hbr is to unite, join together.
        The Servant pours out his soul/life as a sin offering, sm (Isa. 53.19). The sm is, according to Milgrom, the sacrifice which redresses the m’l, which is either sacrilege against holy things or violation of the covenant. The soul/life was in the blood of the sacrifice, hence it was poured out.

    All this suggests that the Servant figure was modelled on the one who performed the atonement rites in the first temple. (Barker, Great High Priest, 53–54, and compare http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/FourthServantSong.pdf)

In light of all the foregoing, it becomes even more significant that Abinadi quotes Isaiah 53 during his Pentecost discourse in the temple city of Nephi near Noah’s temple (Mosiah 12–17).89

Eusebius knew some Christians who read the word mrhm, “from the womb,” as mrym, “from Mary” (Barker, Christmas, The Orginal Story, p. 6).  It's worth noticing that Eusebuis was a contemporary of Mormon and Moroni, the editors of the Book of Mormon.

Welch's review also mentions these tidbits:

The phrase “Son of God” is now known not to be anachronistic in the Gospels in light of Dead Sea Scroll 4Q246 (p. 62).

°  “When God begets the Messiah, he shall come with them [at] the head of the whole congregation of Israel,” according to 1Q28aII (p. 62).

°  In the older text of Deuteronomy 32:43, “angels of God” was “sons of God,” and the Lord was one of the “sons of God” (p. 62).

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1465&index=3

Her case in The Risen Lord is also interesting and relevant:

In Barker’s work, the temple themes embodied in the titles of the Holy One, the Servant/Lamb, and the Melchizedek figure provide a context for interpreting the life of Jesus.

The paradigm I am proposing answers several questions. It shows the link between Christology and Soteriology and roots both in first-century Palestine, interpreting what is there within the resources of available tradition. . . . The paradigm I am proposing also shows that what Jesus believed about himself was identical with what the young church preached about him, even though he had been imperfectly understood at times. It makes Jesus himself the author and finisher of the faith, rather than the early communities, a supposition which has been fashionable for some time. The great message of atonement was not just a damage limitation exercise on the part of a traumatized group of disciples who could find no other way of coming to terms with the death of their leader.³³

Barker uses her background research and this foreground premise as a means to show that Christianity springs from the self-understanding of the historical Jesus and that Christianity is best explained if Jesus knew who he was, and knew what his life was for. Her arguments in The Risen Lord show her disagreement with scholars who prefer to imagine that Christianity originated with the despair of the apostles in trying to come to terms with the unexpected death of Jesus. She marshals an impressive range of evidence to back up her assertions.

And a bit more from Paradigms Regained:

 

In discussing the angel mythology, Barker provides another insight about the Messianic expectations that casts significant light on the Book of Mormon:

There are significant word patterns in [Isaiah] 35:5–6: the blind, the deaf, the lame and the dumb are healed in the renewal of the creation, but the names of these four are also those of four types of angel. . . . How these supernatural beings were connected to these disabilities is not clear, but it is surely no coincidence that Jesus used the curing of these four types as his sign. John the Baptist asked if Jesus was the one expected (Luke 7:20ff), and the reply was an amalgam of these verses and Isaiah 61:1. . . . In the Gospels, the defeat of what these creatures represented is seen as a sign of the kingdom of God.⁴⁸

Barker’s point is that there was a specific expectation that the Messiah should demonstrate his power over these specific manifestations of evil. John’s disciples asked, “Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?”⁴⁹ By way of response Luke says that “in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight.”⁵⁰ Then, after performing these particular miracles, “Jesus . . . said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.”⁵¹ The answer through specific action shows rather than tells, and therefore makes sense only in light of a preexisting expectation. Recall that John the Baptist had identified Jesus as “the Lamb of God,” so the title that Nephi uses in his prophecy of these events may be significant:

And he spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the Lamb of God going forth among the children of men. And I beheld multitudes of people who were sick, and who were afflicted with all manner of diseases, and with devils and unclean spirits; and the angel spake and showed all these things unto me. And they were healed by the power of the Lamb of God; and the devils and the unclean spirits were cast out.⁵²

Notice, too, how appropriate it is that in the Book of Mormon, Benjamin not only reports an angelic visitation during which he was told of these miraculous demonstrations of the power of the Messiah over evil spirits, but he does so in the proper temple context, during the autumn festival:

And the things which I shall tell you are made known unto me by an angel from God. And he said unto me: Awake; and I awoke, and behold he stood before me. And he said unto me: Awake, and hear the words which I shall tell thee; for behold, I am come to declare unto you the glad tidings of great joy. . . . For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent⁵³ who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases. And he shall cast out devils, or the evil spirits which dwell in the hearts of the children of men. And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people . . . And he shall rise the third day from the dead; and behold, he standeth to judge the world; and behold, all these things are done that a righteous judgment might come upon the children of men. For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned.⁵⁴

In fulfillment of this prophecy, 3 Nephi 26:15 duly notes these specific signs of the Messiah:

And it came to pass that after he had ascended into heaven—the second time that he showed himself unto them, and had gone unto the Father, after having healed all their sick, and their lame, and opened the eyes of their blind and unstopped the ears of the deaf, and even had done all manner of cures among them, and raised a man from the dead, and had shown forth his power unto them, and had ascended unto the Father—

The expectation that Barker sees for the Messiah to demonstrate his power over the fallen angels is demonstrated in Book of Mormon prophecies and in the record of their fulfillment.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2694&index=6

I find this kind of thing specific, detailed, interconnected, and widely supported in terms of its relevance to the Book of Mormon.  Though of course, paradigm and ideology being what they are, and all data being "theory-laden" I don't expect everyone to see it the same way I do, as exciting and persuasive and promising.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[thesometimesaint]

21 hours ago, ksfisher said:

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

In My Never To Be Humble Opinion.

[thesometimesaint]

20 hours 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. 

Never said it is a problem for faith in Christ. However If one were to believe Christ never existed(A made-up story) it is problematic to claim to be a Christian.

[hope_for_things]

23 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/

I've never seen your blog before, but let me give you huge kudos for these posts.  You have a new fan, this is great stuff!  Thank you for writing these thoughts up, this really resonates with me.  If we can get to a place for honest thoughtful conversations like I see in your posts, then I think I could be completely comfortable at church again. A couple thoughts on your post:

 

Joseph was very comfortable with changing his theology over relatively short periods of time.  The evolution of doctrine in the early church is dramatic.  But not only changes in the theology that then made their way to revisions of earlier revelations and teachings, but also as a response to external criticisms.  The apologetics of Joseph and the early saints.  When I look at changes in this context it helps to explain why some of the changes were occurring, not necessarily as simply line upon line revelation, but as a defense of the faith and as justification for some of the questionable and unethical actions of the church and its leaders.  

This realization causes me to critically think about practices, teachings and beliefs that the church espouses that are contrary to what is moral and good.  If the church can get to this stage of its ongoing restoration of all things, if we can not only build on the doctrines, but if we can examine our history, and discard the bad and innovate, then I see a bright future for the church, but it will take bold leadership to accomplish this vision.

 

The other thought I had while reading your post, is I wonder if you've considered why Joseph was so comfortable speaking and writing the way he did with respect to declaring the words of God as if he was channeling God's voice.  This kind of scriptural writing is rare, at least we don't have any current leaders willing to say things like "thus saith the Lord" and proclaim to be channeling God's voice using that language today.  Orthodox members take Joseph's words at face value, but as someone on the liberal end of the spectrum that doesn't believe in the historicity of the BoM, I don't believe Joseph was ever channeling God's voice exactly, yet I'm willing to allow for some level of inspiration.  I also believe there was either self deception or fraudulent and intentional deception by Joseph at times. I wanted to get your thoughts on whether you think members can be open enough to consider these possibilities of deception as part of the human element involved in church history.  

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Never said it is a problem for faith in Christ. However If one were to believe Christ never existed(A made-up story) it is problematic to claim to be a Christian.

Thankfully, we don't have that problem in this scenario. 

[Nevo]

6 hours ago, cdowis said:

[Matthew 2:23] 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".  

Right. The Book of Mormon itself promotes this conspiracy theory. Thus, for example, we are assured that the pre-exilic prophet Zenock knew that "the God of Jacob" would yield himself "as a man, into the hands of wicked men, to be lifted up"; Neum knew that YHWH would be "crucified"; and Zenos knew that YHWH would be "buried in a sepulchre," but all of these explicit pre-exilic references to Christ (among others) were expunged from the Jewish canon by wicked men. I know some find that perfectly plausible but I don't. 
 

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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 strengthens the case for the BoM.

You're right that most of the detailed, explicit knowledge of Jesus Christ in the Book of Mormon is attributed to special revelation—dreams, visions, angelic ministrations, etc.—rather than to existing prophetic writings (although see above). But again this strikes me as a bit too convenient. Why is it that the Book of Mormon prophets know Jesus' name, his mother's name, his address, his exact manner of death and burial, and understand that he atoned for the sins of the world, redeeming mankind from the fall of Adam, etc., while the biblical prophets cited in the Book of Mormon show no such awareness?

[Nevo]

On 3/24/2016 at 2:51 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

For you that may indeed be nonsense, since you do not read the scholarly literature.

I've read enough of it to know that you are blowing smoke

 

Edited April 2, 2016 by Nevo

[Calm]

Nevo, Could it not be that these prophets were not well known to all Jews, but were the leaders of a smaller community, perhaps like the Essenes, who in my understanding had their own unique writings?  And when destroyed or disbanded through the turmoil of the time, their writings were lost, either intentionally destroyed or through the lack of believers to care for them.

[Nevo]

4 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I find this kind of thing specific, detailed, interconnected, and widely supported in terms of its relevance to the Book of Mormon.  Though of course, paradigm and ideology being what they are, and all data being "theory-laden" I don't expect everyone to see it the same way I do, as exciting and persuasive and promising

Thanks, Kevin, for taking the time to write all of that. I don't find those arguments as persuasive as you do, but I appreciate you laying them out.

Specifically, I don't accept Barker's claim that John the Baptist "must have meant the Servant" when he referred to Jesus as the lamb of God that should take away the sin(s) of the world. That theory has been around for well over a century and has found very few takers. That said, there's no question that the Gospel writers understood Jesus' death in light of Deutero-Isaiah's suffering Servant of the Lord.

Regarding Barker's "temple theology," I'm sure I don't need to remind you that Barker's views are well outside the scholarly mainstream. While you find her theories compelling, few biblical scholars do. One looks in vain for Barker's name in scholarly bibliographies. But even if she's right—a very big if—her theories strike me as an awkward fit for the Book of Mormon.

Consider the following summary of temple theology, posted on her website:

• The Temple/Tabernacle was a microcosm of the creation.
• Day One was the Holy of Holies, the Unity beyond time and matter, the world of the angels and the Kingdom of God.
• The eternal covenant held visible and invisible creation in one system.
• The fallen angels taught mortals how to abuse knowledge and thus break the bonds of the covenant.
• The liturgies maintained the creation.
• Atonement was the ritual self offering of the Lord to renew the eternal covenant  and thus heal the creation. This was the covenant renewed at the Last Supper.
• Priests were angels and angels were priests.
• The Lord, the God of Israel, was the Son of God Most High, the Second God.
• The royal High Priest was the Lord with his people.
• Incarnation was symbolised by the vestments.
• The Queen of Heaven, also known as Wisdom, had been part of the original Temple cult as Virgin Mother of the Messiah.
• Humans could become angels. This was known as resurrection or theosis.
• The Temple was remembered as Eden.
• Adam was the original high priest, and leaving Eden was losing the Temple.
• The New Testament reverses the story of Eden and brings Christians back to the original Temple.
• Pythagoras knew this system of thought and it appears in Plato’s Timaeus.

Where in the Book of Mormon do we read of an angelomorphic priesthood or of the atonement as a rite for healing creation? Where is Adam described as the high priest of an "Eden temple"? Where do we find liturgies maintaining the creation? I suppose you do see these things in the Book of Mormon but I remain unpersuaded. Paradigms and all that, I guess.

[consiglieri]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

So the Book of Mormon prophets were that far ahead of the Old Testament prophets?

[consiglieri]

13 hours ago, cdowis said:

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".  

I blame the Jews!

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Nevo, Could it not be that these prophets were not well known to all Jews, but were the leaders of a smaller community, perhaps like the Essenes, who in my understanding had their own unique writings?  And when destroyed or disbanded through the turmoil of the time, their writings were lost, either intentionally destroyed or through the lack of believers to care for them.

Of course it is possible, Calm.

And it just so happens that in each and every case, the records mentioning the foreknowledge of all the specifics about Jesus were the ones that went into the dustbin.

 

[churchistrue]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I've never seen your blog before, but let me give you huge kudos for these posts.  You have a new fan, this is great stuff!  Thank you for writing these thoughts up, this really resonates with me.  If we can get to a place for honest thoughtful conversations like I see in your posts, then I think I could be completely comfortable at church again. A couple thoughts on your post:

 

Joseph was very comfortable with changing his theology over relatively short periods of time.  The evolution of doctrine in the early church is dramatic.  But not only changes in the theology that then made their way to revisions of earlier revelations and teachings, but also as a response to external criticisms.  The apologetics of Joseph and the early saints.  When I look at changes in this context it helps to explain why some of the changes were occurring, not necessarily as simply line upon line revelation, but as a defense of the faith and as justification for some of the questionable and unethical actions of the church and its leaders.  

This realization causes me to critically think about practices, teachings and beliefs that the church espouses that are contrary to what is moral and good.  If the church can get to this stage of its ongoing restoration of all things, if we can not only build on the doctrines, but if we can examine our history, and discard the bad and innovate, then I see a bright future for the church, but it will take bold leadership to accomplish this vision.

 

The other thought I had while reading your post, is I wonder if you've considered why Joseph was so comfortable speaking and writing the way he did with respect to declaring the words of God as if he was channeling God's voice.  This kind of scriptural writing is rare, at least we don't have any current leaders willing to say things like "thus saith the Lord" and proclaim to be channeling God's voice using that language today.  Orthodox members take Joseph's words at face value, but as someone on the liberal end of the spectrum that doesn't believe in the historicity of the BoM, I don't believe Joseph was ever channeling God's voice exactly, yet I'm willing to allow for some level of inspiration.  I also believe there was either self deception or fraudulent and intentional deception by Joseph at times. I wanted to get your thoughts on whether you think members can be open enough to consider these possibilities of deception as part of the human element involved in church history.  

Thanks for the kind words.  I also would like to see the brethren feeling a little more confident to discard the bad and innovate.  But then, you're dealing with a church with 15M (or 5M active) members in 200 some countries with various views and perspectives that run the gamut.  So defining what's bad and innovating in a way that's productive for the entire church probably is a tough job.  I have faith that they are good men and doing their best to lead the church according to God's will.  I'm hopeful we're going in the right direction. 

Deception in terms of describing what Joseph was doing?  I think that's a complex issue.  Maybe he misunderstood what was happening sometimes.  Maybe he misremembered things as time went on.  Maybe he used language that we misunderstand?  Maybe he embellished things a little?  Maybe he said things and people ran with it in a different direction and he didn't correct them?  Maybe he deceived?  I don't have a perfect answer.  I'm willing to table that and focus on what we have now not the origins.  Similar to what liberal Christian scholars do with the Bible.

 

[Nevo]

10 hours ago, churchistrue said:

... not just the topics, ie the bullet point items you just listed, are anachronistic but also the phraseology and logic used to define and defend these topics are straight from the modern world. 

True. I don't think there's any getting around the fact that nineteenth-century phraseology is pervasive in the Book of Mormon. You mentioned the debate over an infinite vs. finite atonement in your blog post. One could also point to the statements about this life being a probationary state, the atonement as a means of satisfying both God's mercy and his justice, etc., that seem to have been drawn from orthodox anti-Universalist preaching. Then there are the hints of a Jeffersonian-type republican ideology in the text, people falling into trances as though they were dead, and so on.

As I see it, there are three main options: one can believe that the book's uncanny parallels to Joseph Smith's nineteenth-century environment are attributable to the book's "prophetic texture" (see Givens, By the Hand of Mormon, 166); one can accept Blake Ostler's view that the Book of Mormon is a modern expansion of an ancient source; or one can view the book as a remarkable piece of frontier fiction.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Nevo said:

I've read enough of it to know that you are blowing smoke

I attach, for your edification, a paper I wrote on Mowinckel's He That Cometh a few years ago. It isn't a great piece of writing or analysis by any means, but I think it does demonstrate at least a passing awareness of some of the scholarly literature relating to Jewish messianism.

Mowinckel.docx

If Mowinkel had been a Mormon, you'd be claiming that he was "blowing smoke."  Sigmund was a great scholar, and that book is astonishing, but there can be no excuse for your deep-seated prejudices against the Mormons.

ETA:  Very nice review essay on Mowinckel.  You are aware of some scholarly writings, and should be encouraged to continue to develop that skill.  Very few on this board ever bother with such matters.  Makes me wonder whether you are a self-hating Mormon, i.e., takes Mormons to task for their views almost as a matter of course, rather than allowing the chips to fall where they may.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[cdowis]

5 hours ago, Nevo said:

 I know some find that perfectly plausible but I don't. 
 

==yawn==  
And this is the best that you can come with.

[cdowis]

12 hours ago, churchistrue said:

 We have ancient prophets jumping into a modern argument between Calvinists and Arminians on whether the atonement is limited or infinite, using the same NT scriptures expounded out with 17th-19th century phrases and logic to support the position.  

That is an assumption derived from the view that the BOM is a modern text.  I assume that you did not read my post on an alternative to that view or that you consider it so absurd that you can simply ignore it.

But you cannot deny the fact that there is a response to your assertion.

Edited March 25, 2016 by cdowis

[Nevo]

49 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If Mowinkel had been a Mormon, you'd be claiming that he was "blowing smoke."  Sigmund was a great scholar, and that book is astonishing, but there can be no excuse for your deep-seated prejudices against the Mormons.

Well, we agree on Mowinckel at least. Enjoy the rest of your Maundy Thursday, Robert.

 

12 minutes ago, cdowis said:

==yawn==  
And this is the best that you can come with.

Sorry to disappoint. But obviously I can't prove that conspiring Jews didn't remove references to Christ from the Old Testament. I will say that I don't think your Matthew 2:23 reference is evidence of tampering. For other more plausible explanations, see any of the major commentaries on Matthew.

[cdowis]

27 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Sorry to disappoint. But obviously I can't prove that conspiring Jews didn't remove references to Christ from the Old Testament. I will say that I don't think your Matthew 2:23 reference is evidence of tampering. For other more plausible explanations, see any of the major commentaries on Matthew.

Have you asked yourself why the scribes and Pharasees did not seem to be disturbed by WHAT John the Baptist was doing, that baptism was not some cultic rite that they could simply mock him.  The difficulty that Christ pointed out was whether or not he had the authority to perform baptisms.  It seems that, at that time, baptism was not simply the common practice of purification but a fairly major event that brought out crowds of people.  Why, considering that it was not directly mentioned in the scriptures, was it so universally accepted BEFORE the ministry of Christ.

Is it possible that it was expunged?  Paul mentions the baptism of Moses and the Israelites and that Christ was the Jehovah following them in the cloud (I Cor 10:1-4.  Was he referring to a scriptural record no longer extant.

Edited March 25, 2016 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

So the Book of Mormon prophets were that far ahead of the Old Testament prophets?

No.  They were in the same business, and any accuracy in naming or other details is automatically attributed to prophecy ex eventu -- "prophecy" after the fact.  Has to do with worldview and all that.  So when we read of kings like Josiah in I Kings13:2, or of Cyus in Isaiah 44:28, 45:1, those passages had to have been written later and then backdated.  Right?  So when Mosiah 3:8-9 lists Jesus and Mary by name and even details of his execution, that is all ex eventu, same as in the Bible (cf. II Ne 25:19)..  This applies also when we read Isaiah 12:2-3, 25:9, 52:10, Psalms 35:9, 38:22, Luke 1:69, 2:30, 3:6 with "Jesus" instead of "salvation," since they mean the same thing, and it is a translation choice (so II Ne 22:2-3; cf. II Ne 33:6, where the choice of "Jesus" could as easily have been "salvation")

On the other hand, Counselor, you do not seem to get upset with near-term prophecy, which must also be ex eventu.  Right?  For example, Matt 1:20-25 has Joseph receiving a dream-revelation on the name and etymology of "Jesus." Mary is told by Gabriel what Jesus' name will be (Luke 1:31).  Others are able to predict where he will be born (Matt 2:4-6).  Yet, even the birth and name of "John" is predicted by Gabriel (Luke 1:11-13).  Such things are just impossible, and texts must have been forged.  Reading the text in English translation, your awareness of these issues may be less clear than you imagine.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

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

Sorry to disappoint. But obviously I can't prove that conspiring Jews didn't remove references to Christ from the Old Testament. I will say that I don't think your Matthew 2:23 reference is evidence of tampering. For other more plausible explanations, see any of the major commentaries on Matthew.

Although well read in other areas, you clearly have not heard of tikkunei sopherim "emendations of the scribes" -- pious scribes who were trying to prevent perceived blasphemies in the holy text, and so altered it. In other cases, when the early text was in a state of flux, and while editors were busy transmitting and redacting, many changes were wrought.  Just looking at the LXX and MT alone tells us that, not to mention consultation with the Samaritan and Dead Sea texts.  Barker merely maintains that many of those changes were theologically motivated, and it will not be the first time that has happened.  Scholars have already concluded that the Deuteronomistic Historian was certainly a revisionist.  We can clearly see certain systematic changes in the early Israelite theology.