The Three Four Pattern in the BOM

[Brant Gardner]

Dan Vogel:

In fact, the parallels between the Jos. Sr. and Lehi families is quite striking.

I guess it is a case of "my parallels are good, yours are not." Still, from any standard I know of for judging parallels, those are less than striking. They show signs of manipulation to make them parallel, which to me is a quick sign that the parallels are not instructive for anything but the author's imagination.

I'd love to see your defense of the methodology of parallels and how to avoid their known pitfalls.

[King Folly]

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

No, I'm not. Nephi could not have "adapted the pattern" since the pattern occurred at his birth--unless of course he changed his birth order in his account.

He (Nephi) was obviously aware of the tales of the exodus and intentionally patterned his narrative with allusions to that one.

Now you're the one being intentionally obtuse. How about "Joseph Smith was obviously aware of the tales of the exodus..."?

--KY

[Calm]

I don

[bcnoel]

I think I see the points for and against this numerical manipulation by Nephi. I really don't see a problem either way. I've also heard the point made by enummaelish about the number 14 and its frequent use throughout the book of Matthew. The way someone explained it to me is that ancient writers "painted a picture" using the symbolism of numbers. This symbolism gave their message a richer meaning that grabbed the attention of ancient readers.

I love learning about these kind of parallels! They are truly fascinating!

Thank you enummaelish.

P.S. I like to explore these things further and really investigate them also. I don't just jump on any old bandwagon when something new comes along. It does give some interesting food for thought.

[John Russell]

Dan Vogel:I don

[Confidential Informant]

Now you're the one being intentionally obtuse. How about "Joseph Smith was obviously aware of the tales of the exodus..."?

I don't buy it. The allusions and connections are so subtle that only an ancient audince would have clued into them. Then again, I'm not the expert on this (I'll defer to Cromis etc., for that).

C.I.

[King Folly]

[QOUTE]The allusions and connections are so subtle that only an ancient audience would have clued into them.

[dacook]

Since no one else has yet, may I dub this the "Clean-up batter" theory of ancient literary devices? (Batting fourth for the Nephites...Nephi!) Sorry, I couldn't resist. I do think it's interesting, whether there's anything really there or not.... I'll shut up now.

[Confidential Informant]

[QOUTE]The allusions and connections are so subtle that only an ancient audience would have clued into them.

Respectfully, how do we know that?

--KY

[USU78]

Seems to me this works both for good brother/inheritor and for bad guy/curse carrier situations. Observe Shem/Ham/Japheth . . . and Canaan in the Gen. 9:18-28, Shem is listed first, Ham second, and Japheth third, then it says "Ham is Canaan's father." Then comes the alternating cursings and blessings.

This is fascinating stuff.

[enummaelish]

Great observation USU78. That is one that Zakovitch missed. Another Mesopotamian example is the story of Utnapishtim (the Babylonian Noah), who sends out three fowls in order to determine if the waters have receded; the fourth component in the story actually comes as a result of the third act since Utnapishtim follows the third gesture by subsequently sending all of the living creatures from the boat; see Gilgamesh XI, 146-155.

Dear Dan:

I must say that your brief comment inspired me. I may actually purchase your book just to see if I can find a closer Near Eastern parallel to Joseph Smith's restored scripture than every argument you raise against their historicity. Unless of course that was the only one in which case I probably wouldn

[exegete]

Hi David,

You responded to Dan Vogel:

I must say that your brief comment inspired me. I may actually purchase your book just to see if I can find a closer Near Eastern parallel to Joseph Smith's restored scripture than every argument you raise against their historicity. Unless of course that was the only one in which case I probably wouldn

[wenglund]

I'm continually astonished by how little substance it takes to impress some LDS apologists. Compare the quality of analysis in this thread with that of another thread that you started but stopped participating in here. Frankly, I agree with Dan: many of my apologetic friends lack self-criticism.

Best regards,

Brent

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

I suppose that the same can be said of those of us who are "impressed" by the beauty of a rose, absent much, if any, analysis (at least, that is how I initially viewed the numerology--having been intrigued by its simple, yet complex, beauty such that my curiosity was piqued enough to explore further).

So, I plead guilty.

Certainly, there is no self-criticism involved (at least for me) in such instances.

In fact, as "astonishing" and "unscholarly" as it may seem, I would find analysis and self-criticism a bit out of place and premature at this point.

No doubt, though, there will be plenty of opportunity down the road to intricately dissect this

[Dan Vogel]

Enummaelish,

I must say that your brief comment inspired me. I may actually purchase your book just to see if I can find a closer Near Eastern parallel to Joseph Smith's restored scripture than every argument you raise against their historicity. Unless of course that was the only one in which case I probably wouldn

[enummaelish]

I know it's sometimes difficult to resist, but your less-than-subtle backhand is wholly unworthy of the scholarship you bring to discussions of Mormon scripture. Of course Dan has numerous reasons for viewing Joseph Smith as the BoMor author, as do I.

Of course you do Brent. I believe that I am aware of most of them. And I have no problem with you or Dan choosing to view the BOM as purely a 19th century work of fiction. I actually enjoy reading your views.

Ultimately, we engage in the same type of hobby. I

[enummaelish]

what I have presented with regard to the Joseph Smith, Sr., family and Lehi

[ssbn623]

Ether 6:14 with 6:27 matches the three four pattern.

Jared's fourth son accepted the kingship.

[enummaelish]

Jared's fourth son accepted the kingship.

That is sooo interesting!!!! As I suggested with the Mesopotamian parallels, the pattern is not just

[Daniel Peterson]

I get your allusion to Brodie and Thomas Jefferson, but how do you explain that she was right?

Speaking parenthetically, when was it demonstrated that Fawn Brodie was right? That a Jefferson appears to have fathered a child with Sally Hemmings has been demonstrated. That it was Thomas has not, and there is reason to believe that it was not Thomas but his brother.

How did she "know"? Accusations that Thomas Jefferson had an affair with Sally Hemmings had been around for well over a century when she wrote.

[USU78]

I get your allusion to Brodie and Thomas Jefferson, but how do you explain that she was right?

Say what?

[enummaelish]

Dan, I tried to purchase your book this morning at the local LDS bookstore here in Belmont, MA. Unfortunately, they not only fail to carry Joseph Smith but also your Early Mormon Documents collections (which BTW I told them from my perspective is a real mistake). This means that I will have to purchase the book on line and wait patiently for its arrival, a rather unfortunate affair since as I suggested, your comments sparked my interest.

P.S. I hope that no one who reads that last sentence writes a biography about my life suggesting that I have at some point been unfaithful to my spouse.

[King Folly]

Ether 6:14 with 6:27 matches the three four pattern. Jared's fourth son accepted the kingship.

I'm sorry. I don't get it. If we're talking about REAL PEOPLE here then there is no literary pattern because human agency is involved. God cannot induce a numerological pattern involving individual righteousness without violating the laws of agency.

OTOH, if it's NOT a real history then these types of patterns make sense as potential literary devices.

You simply cannot have it both ways.

--KY

[Confidential Informant]

Ether 6:14 with 6:27 matches the three four pattern. Jared's fourth son accepted the kingship.

I'm sorry. I don't get it. If we're talking about REAL PEOPLE here then there is no literary pattern because human agency is involved. God cannot induce a numerological pattern involving individual righteousness without violating the laws of agency.

OTOH, if it's NOT a real history then these types of patterns make sense as potential literary devices.

You simply cannot have it both ways.

--KY

You aren't following the conversation or understanding the concept.

Look at what he wrote about David. David was the 8th son, but the person who recorded the hisotry only mentioned three older brother so that he could place David 4th. Thus, David could well have been a "real" person AND his history was slight skewed by the author to fit the important pattern.

Now, at the risk of looking like an idiot, I fully admit that maybe I'm the whose no grasping the concept, but I don't see the dichotomy you are attempting to draw.

C.I.

[John Russell]

Joseph Smith certainly saw parallels between himself and the Book of Mormon when he encountered 2 Nephi 3 (I'm obviously assuming he was a translator rather than author). Despite Dan's self-criticism, I find the apparent parallels between Joseph's family and the Book of Mormon strained and less than compelling. They are interesting, but I don't find them personally convincing. The family relationships described in the Book of Mormon are not altogether unique, and could be fit to any number of living (and dead) families. Indeed, I am the fourth child in my family, and two of my older siblings rebelled against my parents, which caused them no end of grief. I took a great deal of grief from both of them, but I was supported by the elder sib who was closest to me in age (ala Sam). My father and mother even had dreams about my older sibs, due to their anxiety. Self-criticism doesn't make one's position right or wrong. Nor do correlations demonstrate causation.

Brent, I have no doubt that you and Dan have numerous reasons to accept naturalistic origins for the Book of Mormon. Some of us are simply not convinced of your reasons, although we enjoy your perspectives. But frankly, the contemptuous and belittling tones of some of your posts don't help your position very much. Your comments to Enummaelish sounded more like a stuffy schoolmarm addressing an errant child than someone wanting to carry on a conversation. As someone observed earlier, "I know it's sometimes difficult to resist, but your less-than-subtle backhand is wholly unworthy of the scholarship you bring to discussions of Mormon scripture".

[King Folly]

Look at what he wrote about David.  David was the 8th son, but the person who recorded the hisotry only mentioned three older brother so that he could place David 4th.  Thus, David could well have been a "real" person AND his history was slight skewed by the author to fit the important pattern.

CI, thank you for explaining this to me. I think I understand now.

That said, stuff like this only makes me more sure in my belief that the Bible is largely myth loosely based on history rather than affirming that the Book of Mormon is historical. But that's just me.

--KY