Rajah Manchou Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) On 3/23/2016 at 11:30 PM, churchistrue said: 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? I don't sense that the majority of American members of the Church are going to be open to a metaphorical Book of Mormon, but its much easier for the Asian members I interact with. First of all, they have no grasp of New York or Mesoamerican geography, so for them the Susquehanna might as well be a hillock along the Grijalva River just downstream from Nauvoo. The historical details are less important to someone who will never step foot in America. The Asian approach to revealed scripture is also uniquely nuanced. For example, Buddhist scholars have picked up on the story of Joseph Smith, and they come at it from a different angle. Here's an interview with Donald Lopez. He wrote an interesting introduction to his translation of the Tibetan Book of the Dead wherein he compares Joseph Smith to the tertons (treasure finders) of Tibet and Bhutan.http://donaldgvdevketala.blogspot.com/"In Tibetan Buddhism there is a genre of literature called terma, which literally means “treasure.” The idea is that the great tantric master Padmasambhava came to Tibet in the late 700’s and he couldn’t stay very long, and he had various things that he knew the Tibetans would need in the future. As the story goes, he dictated these scriptures in a kind of coded script and buried them all over the country—in mountains and rocks and at the bottom of lakes and inside pillars. Those texts began to be discovered some centuries later and were even discovered into the twentieth century. They have become one of the most important genres of Tibetan literature over the centuries. The Tibetan work that became The Tibetan Book of the Dead was such a text, buried in the eighth century and unearthed in the fourteenth century. Of course, scholars have to look at these buried “treasure texts” with a great deal of skepticism because they’re not written in Tibetan. They’re written in a language that only the person who discovers them can read and that person translates them into Tibetan so that others can read them. This is a controversial point in the field of Tibetan Studies because from one perspective—to use your term—they look a lot like frauds. It looks like someone trying to gain spiritual authority for himself by saying look what I just found. Nonetheless, they have become part of the canon. We have a structurally similar case of the discovery of sacred scriptures when Joseph Smith unearths the tablets of The Book of Mormon in upstate New York. To get back to the issue of how one can be both a critical scholar and also a religious person—I was very struck and moved by the story of Smith because everything he did occurred not on the other side of the world, but in upstate New York. This is not a place we would consider exotic. And it occurred not in the 700s, but in the early 1800s. It happened, in other words, in the light of history. American historians and Mormon scholars know a lot about everything that Smith did. We have letters and all sorts of pamphlets and papers—all the kinds of documents that we don’t have in the case of The Tibetan Book of the Dead. That places a different onus of credibility and authority on The Book of Mormon. It has been said that Mormonism or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the most American of all religions, and one reason it is so American is because it sanctified American soil. Smith dug down into the dirt of upstate New York and he found a sacred book. And the Tibetans did a rather similar thing. They couldn’t go to India anymore. Buddhism had essentially disappeared there. So how do you find new scriptures? You dig them up. In 2007 I gave some lectures in Puerto Rico, where Buddhism is becoming popular. Two Nyingma Lamas had been there to give some teachings. My hosts said, “They told us that Padmasambhava came to Puerto Rico and left some texts in the mountains.” My personal belief is that Mormonism is not unique to upstate New York or Mesoamerica. We focus on those limited geographies because we expect they will prove the historicity of the one text that we have pinned our entire identity to. I think we're missing out, proving the Book of Mormon true is not the only way to prove Mormonism true. Mormonism is confirmed to be true every time a sacred text (physical or metaphorical) is dug out of the ground, anywhere. Edited March 25, 2016 by Rajah Manchou 2
Kevin Christensen Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 15 hours ago, Nevo said: 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. If I was all that concerned with following consensus and majority opinion, I would not be LDS. She ended up where she is because she was not happy with the mainstream. http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/ReflectionsOnBiblicalStudies.pdf And that she has managed to publish 17 books and a wide range of articles, and awarded a Doctorate by the Archbishop of Canterbury suggests that there are those who appreciate her work. Someone thought it a good idea to make her an editor of religious books, president of the Society for Old Testament Study, write an important Isaiah commentary, head up a study of Christian Origins at Cambridge, lecture in a wide range of important venues. In considering the notion of a reliable and objective "mainstream," I ran across this by Professor John McDade which, I find very thought provoking, and of interest for situating Margaret in relation to various trends in Jesus research: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi9iofm_NvLAhWEoD4KHUj2B2oQFggbMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic1.1.sqspcdn.com%2Fstatic%2Ff%2F38692%2F394611%2F1270557825007%2FJesus%2Bin%2BRecent%2BResearch.pdf%3Ftoken%3DaL8uUvY9XLYs48KRVVqPPpByuTc%253D&usg=AFQjCNGfSaGPO7NYAwM977u8eGB4drFpJQ&bvm=bv.117868183,d.cWw That should get to you a pdf by McDade. And I did discuss the connections between Barker's view of the Melchizedek priesthood in Paradigms Regained. And I did compare her views of the Cosmic Covenant with what we have: If the cosmic covenant is not described in the Book of Mormon and other Mormon scripture, might it be implied? This passage from The Risen Lord suggests places for us to look: 1 Enoch 10 describes the judgement; the four archangels are sent out to bind Azazel and imprison him and then to destroy the fallen angels and their children. They then heal the earth, purify it from all defilement, oppression and sin and inaugurate an era of righteousness and fertility: ‘And he will proclaim life to the earth that he is giving life to her’ (1 Enoch 10:7). Here, at last, is a text which gives the meaning of atonement; it was the process by which the effects of sin were removed so that the earth could be healed and restored.It was a rite of recreation when the Lord came forth from his holy place and established his kingdom.57 Mormon readers should immediately discern numerous parallels between this paragraph and the Enoch passages in Moses 7:45–67. These match Barker’s notions very well. And it came to pass that Enoch looked upon the earth; and he heard a voice from the bowels thereof, saying: Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face?58 And it came to pass that Enoch cried unto the Lord, saying: When the Son of Man cometh in the flesh, shall the earth rest? I pray thee, show me these things. And the Lord said unto Enoch: Look, and he looked and beheld the Son of Man lifted up on the cross, after the manner of men; And he heard a loud voice; and the heavens were veiled; and all the creations of God mourned; and the earth groaned; and the rocks were rent; and the saints arose, and were crowned at the right hand of the Son of Man, with crowns of glory; And as many of the spirits as were in prison came forth, and stood on the right hand of God; and the remainder were reserved in chains of darkness until the judgment of the great day. And again Enoch wept and cried unto the Lord, saying: When shall the earth rest? And Enoch beheld the Son of Man ascend up unto the Father; and he called unto the Lord, saying: Wilt thou not come again upon the earth? . . . And the Lord said unto Enoch: As I live, even so will I come in the last days, in the days of wickedness and vengeance, to fulfil the oath which I have made unto you concerning the children of Noah; And the day shall come that the earth shall rest, but before that day the heavens shall be darkened, and a veil of darkness shall cover the earth; and the heavens shall shake, and also the earth; and great tribulations shall be among the children of men, but my people will I preserve;59 And there shall be mine abode, and it shall be Zion, which shall come forth out of all the creations which I have made; and for the space of a thousand years the earth shall rest. And it came to pass that Enoch saw the day of the coming of the Son of Man, in the last days, to dwell on the earth in righteousness for the space of a thousand years.60 This fits with Barker’s notion of “recreation” as the “Lord [comes] forth from his holy place and establishe his kingdom.”61 And once we start thinking in these terms, we can see that 3 Nephi 9–28 follows the same pattern: a renewal of the creation, the appearance of the Lord, and the establishment of his kingdom. Doctrine and Covenants 1:15, 22 describes the past “breaking” and current effort in “establishing the everlasting covenant.” Recall that Barker describes this covenant as “the system of bonds which restrained cosmic forces and maintained an ordered creation where people could live in peace and safety.”62 Doctrine and Covenants 88:7–13 may give the best description of those bonds: This is the light of Christ. . . . Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.63 Barker’s picture of a cosmic covenant casts a valuable light on Latter-day Saint scriptures as well as upon the Bible. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA 4
consiglieri Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: 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. I think the idea of back-dating prophecies happens all over the place, and you have given many examples. I think Daniel back-dated prophecies of things that had happened before the actual author wrote, so they could be fulfilled. My understanding is that one of the main reasons scholars can date Daniel (or at least that part of it) with precision is because that is where the prophecy falls apart. In other words, an author can only back-date prophecies that go up to the time the author is writing, because they are actually in the author's past. A similar thing happens in the Book of Mormon with Nephi's vision, in which he is quite detailed in his prophecy, but only up until the time Joseph Smith was producing the Book of Mormon. After that, it becomes diffuse and undetailed. This is likely evidence Nephi's vision was a back-dated prophecy created in 1829. Along the same vein, the producer of the Book of Mormon back-dated a lot of prophecies about Jesus Christ with pretty much all the details from the New Testament. This was a relatively easy feat for somebody who was already familiar with the New Testament and writing the back-dated BOM prophecies of Jesus in 1829. You mention the back-dated prophecies of Jesus in the New Testament. Of course, that would be an easy thing for Christian authors of the gospels to do, because it was the Christians themselves who were in charge of authoring these texts, just as it was an easy thing for Joseph Smith to insert back-dated prophecies in the BOM because he was in charge of writing that text. But when we come to the Old Testament, it is a completely different ball game. And it is the Old Testament that is important here, because there we find a dearth of detailed prophecies relating to Jesus to compare with those in the Book of Mormon and New Testament. Why would that be? The answer seems obvious. It is because Christians were NOT in charge of the transmission of the texts in the Old Testament. Hence they were not at liberty to insert detailed back-dated prophecies in the Old Testament as they were in the New Testament, and as Joseph Smith was in the Book of Mormon. It really is as simple as this, I think.
hope_for_things Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 16 hours ago, churchistrue said: 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. In general I like to give people the benefit of the doubt as well, but more recently I have had a harder time just allowing that they are trying to do their best and lead the church according to God's will, when I see the pain and some of the very real consequences for poor decisions like the policy change for LGBT members and their families. I look at that and the racist priesthood policy in the past as examples where just trying to do their best clearly has significant negative outcomes, so I don't think effort or intent is the only factor that matters when it comes to leading an organization and making decisions that negatively impact people. As for Joseph deception, there are countless examples throughout Joseph's life where he was deceptive. I think because members of the church in general have a hero worship mentality towards leaders in our culture, as well as the songs like Praise to the Man and the words of John Taylor that are canonized in D&C 135, many people are unwilling to call a spade a spade. Look at Brian Hales' great lengths he takes to explain how Joseph wasn't lying to Emma or the saints with all of his polygamy denials. Many people are willing to twist and turn and explain away the obvious to try and defend deception. I think its clear, and can't be explained away. I'd rather people acknowledge the deception and ask the hard questions about whether this deception was justified or not, rather than try to pretend it didn't happen. To me, Joseph is a highly complex person with positive and negative traits. A whitewashed Joseph is what the church has taught me, a closer examination shows a highly creative and compelling personality as well as a deeply flawed individual. I can't separate the two, and I don't like people trying to give me a Joseph that fits the previous mold that the church has created. Lets have the real Joseph and lets be mature enough to discuss his redeeming qualities as well as his faults in an honest and open way. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: I think the idea of back-dating prophecies happens all over the place, and you have given many examples. I think Daniel back-dated prophecies of things that had happened before the actual author wrote, so they could be fulfilled. My understanding is that one of the main reasons scholars can date Daniel (or at least that part of it) with precision is because that is where the prophecy falls apart. In other words, an author can only back-date prophecies that go up to the time the author is writing, because they are actually in the author's past. A similar thing happens in the Book of Mormon with Nephi's vision, in which he is quite detailed in his prophecy, but only up until the time Joseph Smith was producing the Book of Mormon. After that, it becomes diffuse and undetailed. This is likely evidence Nephi's vision was a back-dated prophecy created in 1829. Along the same vein, the producer of the Book of Mormon back-dated a lot of prophecies about Jesus Christ with pretty much all the details from the New Testament. This was a relatively easy feat for somebody who was already familiar with the New Testament and writing the back-dated BOM prophecies of Jesus in 1829. You mention the back-dated prophecies of Jesus in the New Testament. Of course, that would be an easy thing for Christian authors of the gospels to do, because it was the Christians themselves who were in charge of authoring these texts, just as it was an easy thing for Joseph Smith to insert back-dated prophecies in the BOM because he was in charge of writing that text. But when we come to the Old Testament, it is a completely different ball game. And it is the Old Testament that is important here, because there we find a dearth of detailed prophecies relating to Jesus to compare with those in the Book of Mormon and New Testament. Why would that be? The answer seems obvious. It is because Christians were NOT in charge of the transmission of the texts in the Old Testament. Hence they were not at liberty to insert detailed back-dated prophecies in the Old Testament as they were in the New Testament, and as Joseph Smith was in the Book of Mormon. It really is as simple as this, I think. Yes, Counselor, that is the basic theory, and NT scholars use it to date the Gospels and other writings by finding the latest event contained in the text in order to establish a terminus post quem. Thus, all prophecy is automatically discounted as after the fact, and if a text neglects to mention the destruction of 70 AD, then it must have been written before that destruction. On the other hand, if a prophecy actually dates before an event and is accurate in some respect (as for Joseph's Civil War Prophecy) then it is immediately explained away as vague or merely coincidental -- or even a self-fulfilling prophecy (Gathering of the Jews in modern times). It would not be scientific to suppose otherwise. Of course, the late David Noel Freedman threw cold water on that general notion by pointing to specific instances in which OT prophets had made wrong predictions, and yet their predictions remain in the text -- which doesn't comport with the basic theory. Moreover, he noted that the destruction of Jerusalem taking place on the same day and month (1) by the Babylonians in 586 B.C., and (2) by the Romans in 70 AD, seems hardly credible as mere coincidence. Science doesn't accept a spate of coincidences of this kind. Worse yet for your theory of the composition of the Book of Mormon is the well-supported argument by Skousen & Carmack that Joseph could not have written the BofM since it is in a form of Early Modern English which no longer existed in Joseph's day. Someone else had to have made the translation several centuries before Joseph. 1
mfbukowski Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 On 3/24/2016 at 9:19 AM, 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. Emphasis added. The key here is what YOU believe, and understanding this is the key, not what conversations "we" have at church. If you can honestly pass a temple recommend interview, you are a True Believing Mormon, What everyone says in Sunday school becomes irrelevant. Their views are their views, you disagree, but there is no reason to argue about it because never the twain shall meet. They will never see it your way, so love everyone, tolerate everyone and let them grow at their own rate.. The church needs to "pitch" manuals at the vast majority. Pass that interview and get thee to the temple and apply your new understanding to the wonders there! The Lord's university knows no boundaries! This is between you and the Lord, no "we"s! Sorry for being so direct- it's the old bishop in me. 4
Robert F. Smith Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 On 3/24/2016 at 5:48 AM, churchistrue said: 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. I was saying this in very specific terms long before Dr. Barker came along, but her non-Mormon point of view is very welcome, along with that of Brother Christensen. The only hand-waving I have seen is the hocus-pocus we get from vague generalities of anti-Mormons making claims which they cannot document and are not interested in defending in a scholarly fashion. As for the bleeding of a few members, that will always be the case in every religious organization -- no matter what is true. I am not overly concerned with fear-mongering by the faint of heart. God's purposes will not be frustrated by any of that. 3
cdowis Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) Mistaken people are deluded now? Stop it. He knew I was just making a joke. We are BOTH apologists! He even gave me a rep point. It's called "irony". Do I stop participating in this forum, because I make jokes all the time???? If the mods are offended by my humor, I will just leave. Edited March 27, 2016 by cdowis 2
Bernard Gui Posted March 26, 2016 Posted March 26, 2016 On March 24, 2016 at 3:33 PM, consiglieri said: So the Book of Mormon prophets were that far ahead of the Old Testament prophets? Well, yes. They wrote specifically to testify of Christ. After all, that's the purpose of the Book of Mormon. Throughout their history they anticipated the coming of Christ because its importance and the events surrounding it wer taught to them by prophets who saw and knew him. It is most probable Old World prophets such as Zenos, Zenock. Neum, and Ezias knew of these things, but the specifics of The Christ and his ministry were revealed to the Lehite prophets for a specific purpose...which was explained in detail by Nephi... Quote 2Nephi 25: 23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do. 24 And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled. 25 For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments. 26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins. 27 Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what end the law was given. And after the law is fulfilled in Christ, that they need not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away. 28 And now behold, my people, ye are a stiffneckedpeople; wherefore, I have spoken plainly unto you, that ye cannot misunderstand. And the words which I have spoken shall stand as a testimony against you; for they are sufficient to teach any man the right way; for the right way is to believe in Christ and deny him not; for by denying him ye also deny the prophets and the law. 29 And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out. 30 And, inasmuch as it shall be expedient, ye must keep the performances and ordinances of God until the law shall be fulfilled which was given unto Moses. 1
Bernard Gui Posted March 26, 2016 Posted March 26, 2016 (edited) On March 24, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Nevo said: 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? I suppose because Mormon chose to include those details in order to make the Book a sure and unmistakable witness for Jesus. After all, that is the reason the Book exists. Quote And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations. Edited March 26, 2016 by Bernard Gui 1
consiglieri Posted March 26, 2016 Posted March 26, 2016 9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: I suppose because Mormon chose to include those details in order to make the Book a sure and unmistakable witness for Jesus. After all, that is the reason the Book exists. So God gave Book of Mormon prophets "sure and unmistakable witnesses for Christ" because the Old Testament prophets didn't? Why wouldn't God just give that witness to the Old Testament prophets in the first place and save a lot of trouble?
RevTestament Posted March 26, 2016 Posted March 26, 2016 On 3/25/2016 at 8:34 AM, consiglieri said: I think the idea of back-dating prophecies happens all over the place, and you have given many examples. I think Daniel back-dated prophecies of things that had happened before the actual author wrote, so they could be fulfilled. My understanding is that one of the main reasons scholars can date Daniel (or at least that part of it) with precision is because that is where the prophecy falls apart. In other words, an author can only back-date prophecies that go up to the time the author is writing, because they are actually in the author's past. A similar thing happens in the Book of Mormon with Nephi's vision, in which he is quite detailed in his prophecy, but only up until the time Joseph Smith was producing the Book of Mormon. After that, it becomes diffuse and undetailed. This is likely evidence Nephi's vision was a back-dated prophecy created in 1829. Hmm. Not quite sure what you are referring to, but there are a number of very specific prophecies dealing with events after Joseph's day: 1. 1 Nephi 14:12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw. 2. 3 Nephi 21:20 For it shall come to pass, saith the Father, that at thatday whosoever will not repent and come unto my Beloved Son, them will I cut off from among my people, O house of Israel; 21 And I will execute vengeance and fury upon them, even as upon the heathen, such as they have not heard. 22 But if they will repent and hearken unto my words, and harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them, and they shall come in unto the covenant and be numbered among this the remnant of Jacob, unto whom I have given this land for their inheritance; 23 And they shall assist my people, the remnant of Jacob, and also as many of the house of Israel as shall come, that they may build a city, which shall be called the New Jerusalem. 24 And then shall they assist my people that they may be gathered in, who are scattered upon all the face of the land, in unto the New Jerusalem. 25 And then shall the power of heaven come down among them; and I also will be in the midst. 26 And then shall the work of the Father commence at that day, even when this gospel shall be preached among the remnant of this people. Verily I say unto you, at that day shall the work of the Father commence among all the dispersed of my people, yea, even the tribes which have been lost, which the Father hath led away out of Jerusalem. Quote But when we come to the Old Testament, it is a completely different ball game. And it is the Old Testament that is important here, because there we find a dearth of detailed prophecies relating to Jesus to compare with those in the Book of Mormon and New Testament. Why would that be? The answer seems obvious. It is because Christians were NOT in charge of the transmission of the texts in the Old Testament. Hence they were not at liberty to insert detailed back-dated prophecies in the Old Testament as they were in the New Testament, and as Joseph Smith was in the Book of Mormon. It really is as simple as this, I think. Or that, if they were too specific, it is quite possible too many people would have recognized Yahoshua as the Messiah, and He would have not been rejected and killed. I rather think this is a rather palpable explanation. 1
volgadon Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 23 hours ago, consiglieri said: So God gave Book of Mormon prophets "sure and unmistakable witnesses for Christ" because the Old Testament prophets didn't? Why wouldn't God just give that witness to the Old Testament prophets in the first place and save a lot of trouble? There is actually an interesting process by which Nephi drew on his own experiences and built upon the writings of the prophets that is surprisingly logical. 2
Kevin Christensen Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 Nevo asked " Where in the Book of Mormon do we read of an angelomorphic priesthood?" Sometimes it helps to look behind the language. Sometimes unfamiliar language ("in this case, 'angelomorphic priesthood') can disguise remarkably familiar ideas. From my Paradigms Regained: Angelic Status Angels permeate the Book of Mormon. The word angel appears eighty-five times in the text. The correlation with Barker is not just in the appearance of good and evil angels in the story, but in that Barker writes about the angels transitioning to human status (such as the change to Adam and Eve being represented by their being clothed in garments of skins) and the reverse, humans being transfigured to angelic status.56 Enoch and other writings describe how humans can become angels. We find that acquiring angel status, i.e., eternal life, is symbolized by putting on white garments, and sometimes by anointing with oil, thus linking the angels to the royal figure. The righteous, says Enoch, will wear garments of glory, garments of life (1 Enoch 62:16).57 Barker cites a passage from 2 Enoch to show that the transformation that the white garments symbolize can actually occur: ‘And I looked down,’ he said, ‘looking at myself, and I was as one of the glorious ones and there was no difference. And the terror and trembling went away from me and the Lord with his mouth summoned me and said: “Have courage Enoch; fear not to stand before my face to eternity.”‘58 Compare this with the passage describing the promise of the transformation of the three Nephites in 3 Nephi 28:6—17 and the subsequent transfiguration of the Nephite twelve. This passage combines ascent and angelic status in a temple setting: And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one; And the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and the Father giveth the Holy Ghost unto the children of men, because of me. And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words, he touched every one of them with his finger save it were the three who were to tarry, and then he departed. And behold, the heavens were opened, and they were caught up into heaven, and saw and heard unspeakable things. And it was forbidden them that they should utter; neither was it given unto them power that they could utter the things which they saw and heard; And whether they were in the body or out of the body, they could not tell; for it did seem unto them like a transfiguration of them, that they were changed from this body of flesh into an immortal state, that they could behold the things of God.59 Notice too that the Book of Mormon frequently discusses white garments in connection with atonement and judgment.60 And these twelve ministers whom thou beholdest shall judge thy seed. And, behold, they are righteous forever; for because of their faith in the Lamb of God their garments are made white in his blood. And the angel said unto me: Look! And I looked, and beheld three generations pass away in righteousness; and their garments were white even like unto the Lamb of God. And the angel said unto me: These are made white in the blood of the Lamb, because of their faith in him.61 Likewise in Alma: Now, as I said concerning the holy order of this high priesthood, there were many who were ordained and became high priests of God; and it was on account of their exceeding faith and repentance, and their righteousness before God, they choosing to repent and work righteousness rather than to perish; Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb. Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God.62 Finally, during the appearance of Christ in the New World: And it came to pass that Jesus blessed them as they did pray unto him; and his countenance did smile upon them, and the light of his countenance did shine upon them, and behold they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness, yea, even there could be nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof.63 The emphasis on the garments of glory and the explicit descriptions of the transformation of the three Nephites fits closely with the picture that Barker has constructed. http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2694&index=5 FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 4
hope_for_things Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 On 3/25/2016 at 1:21 PM, mfbukowski said: Emphasis added. The key here is what YOU believe, and understanding this is the key, not what conversations "we" have at church. If you can honestly pass a temple recommend interview, you are a True Believing Mormon, What everyone says in Sunday school becomes irrelevant. Their views are their views, you disagree, but there is no reason to argue about it because never the twain shall meet. They will never see it your way, so love everyone, tolerate everyone and let them grow at their own rate.. The church needs to "pitch" manuals at the vast majority. Pass that interview and get thee to the temple and apply your new understanding to the wonders there! The Lord's university knows no boundaries! This is between you and the Lord, no "we"s! Sorry for being so direct- it's the old bishop in me. Okay, thinking again here. I agree with loving and tolerating everyone and letting them grow at their own rate. This is partly why I'm taking a sabbatical from church currently as I don't always know how to discuss things with people in a way that doesn't threaten them, and I so value and care about others that I tend to avoid discussing the uncomfortable. However, I'm trying to learn vulnerability and open the doors to these important conversations with my circle of family and friends, even if these conversations can lead to discomfort for others. I also believe the church as an institution is struggling with this same challenge. This is partly to explain why the good scholarship that has been going on for many decades has taken so long to reach the grass roots membership consciousness. Better manuals are coming, but not quickly enough. The church's old way of disseminating information is woefully inefficient for addressing a society that gets its news and responds to information almost instantaneously.
USU78 Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 On 3/24/2016 at 0:55 AM, mfbukowski said: 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 And it's supposed to be! 1
mfbukowski Posted March 29, 2016 Posted March 29, 2016 12 hours ago, USU78 said: And it's supposed to be! Not all see it that way. We do not look for historical or scientific evidence of God, but volumes are written trying to prove the historicity of Lehi, BOM geography etc.
mfbukowski Posted March 29, 2016 Posted March 29, 2016 13 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Okay, thinking again here. I agree with loving and tolerating everyone and letting them grow at their own rate. This is partly why I'm taking a sabbatical from church currently as I don't always know how to discuss things with people in a way that doesn't threaten them, and I so value and care about others that I tend to avoid discussing the uncomfortable. However, I'm trying to learn vulnerability and open the doors to these important conversations with my circle of family and friends, even if these conversations can lead to discomfort for others. I also believe the church as an institution is struggling with this same challenge. This is partly to explain why the good scholarship that has been going on for many decades has taken so long to reach the grass roots membership consciousness. Better manuals are coming, but not quickly enough. The church's old way of disseminating information is woefully inefficient for addressing a society that gets its news and responds to information almost instantaneously. It's definitely complicated.
Kevin Christensen Posted March 29, 2016 Posted March 29, 2016 18 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Okay, thinking again here. I agree with loving and tolerating everyone and letting them grow at their own rate. This is partly why I'm taking a sabbatical from church currently as I don't always know how to discuss things with people in a way that doesn't threaten them, and I so value and care about others that I tend to avoid discussing the uncomfortable. However, I'm trying to learn vulnerability and open the doors to these important conversations with my circle of family and friends, even if these conversations can lead to discomfort for others. I also believe the church as an institution is struggling with this same challenge. This is partly to explain why the good scholarship that has been going on for many decades has taken so long to reach the grass roots membership consciousness. Better manuals are coming, but not quickly enough. The church's old way of disseminating information is woefully inefficient for addressing a society that gets its news and responds to information almost instantaneously. You think it would be so much easier to institutionalize uniform levels of education, bordering on omniscience and absolute consistency of thought among a diverse collection of human beings of different ages, backgrounds, temperament, maturity, interest, effort, inclination and experience. It's enough to shake my faith in the arm of the flesh and make me turn my thoughts to trusting God instead. FWIW Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA 1
churchistrue Posted March 29, 2016 Author Posted March 29, 2016 (edited) On 3/24/2016 at 0:55 AM, mfbukowski said: 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 I don't agree with this. This is what I've written on this before. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/ces-letter/ Quote Spiritual vs Historical Truth Historical truths/claims can be validated through traditional intellectual and scientific methods. Example: The New England Patriots won the Super Bowl in 2015. Some truths/claims are completely spiritual concepts that cannot be proven or disproven through traditional intellectual methods. Examples: God exists. The Christ-centered-LDS life can help me connect with God and live more abundantly. Sometimes historical concepts intersect with things that seem like spiritual concepts, yet they are still historical concepts that can be validated through intellectual methods. Examples: God created the earth in six days. The Book of Mormon is an ancient American document. Let’s be careful when we analyze the CES Letter issues that we are not conflating spiritual and historical concepts. Keep in mind that even if a historical claim is challenged, an underlying spiritual truth/claim may still stand. I’ve heard LDS defend the Book of Mormon saying, “You will never prove the Book of Mormon true or not true through an intellectual process. It can only proven through a spiritual process.” I agree and disagree. If you’re equating “truth” to whether or not it’s an ancient American document, then I disagree. We may disagree whether the current evidence prove or disprove it, but that’s a historical claim that can be evaluated intellectually. If you define Book of Mormon “truth” the way I do, ie it is an inspired book of scripture, then I agree with the premise above. It can only be validated through a personal, spiritual process. God lives. That's a spiritual truth that I think can't be invalidated by science and history. Lehites as defined in the Book of Mormon lived. That's not a spiritual truth. Lehites were a group of humans living in the natural world. We have numerous definitive statements describing when and where they came from, their language, their customs, their writings, their wars, etc. This is a scientific/historic proposition not a religious/spiritual proposition. Reading the story of the Lehites can bring spiritual knowledge and blessings. That's a spiritual truth. But their existence? That's a scientific/historical proposition that can be proved or disproved the same as other natural world propositions. Edited March 29, 2016 by churchistrue
hope_for_things Posted March 29, 2016 Posted March 29, 2016 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: You think it would be so much easier to institutionalize uniform levels of education, bordering on omniscience and absolute consistency of thought among a diverse collection of human beings of different ages, backgrounds, temperament, maturity, interest, effort, inclination and experience. It's enough to shake my faith in the arm of the flesh and make me turn my thoughts to trusting God instead. It's not easy, for sure. Since there is no way to effectively measure what is God's will, and what constitutes the arm of the flesh, I worry that "trusting God" can become an excuse rather than an affirmation of faith that God's will is being executed according to plan. We have ample examples throughout history where God's will has been impeded by religious leaders. There are simple and moderately effective ways that today's leaders could address the communication issue. General Conference comes to mind. Meaningful talks could address the kinds of issues that are discussed in the gospel topics essays, including BoM anachronisms as discussed in this thread. Use Patrick Mason's book Planted as a template for how to talk to orthodox believers in a non-threatening way. Sunday school class, sacrament meetings, etc, all need improvement. Just look at Elder Ballard's recent talk given to CES leaders where he basically says the old way of answering challenging questions will no longer work. We need to hear this same message in conference, and on Sundays.
nealr Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 On 3/24/2016 at 4:11 PM, Nevo said: Where in the Book of Mormon do we read of an angelomorphic priesthood Well, funny you should ask. Literally the day before you made this comment, this was published by Book of Mormon Central:http://www.knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/what-is-it-to-speak-with-the-tongue-of-angels For what it is worth, I have a longer, more detailed paper on the same subject under review for publication with Interpreter. 4
Recommended Posts