The State of the Evidence

[Kevin Christensen]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

If "white" was a description of clothing, I doubt anyone would have a problem with changing it to "pure":

Rev 7:14 nrsv

"they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb"

 

One of the things a proof-texting approach, rather than a contextualizing approach does, is overlook the Book of Mormon passages that make equivalent use of skins and garments, whether white, filthy, or pure, as well as those that mention that for some, skins are garments.  And that even before contextualizing the way that Robert points out above, looking at Hebrew and even Egyptian uses.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[jkwilliams]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Depending on how and what to count as a "change" through multiple editions, one can come up with a variety of numbers, nearly all the changes virtually meaningless in any substantive sense.  Only a handful of changes are considered substantive, even by the anti-Mormons.  And even then they are not systematic or consistent throughout.  Since Royal Skousen plans a digital comparison of all editions and manuscripts, we will be able to get a more refined total of all sorts of changes (even in punctuation), but that will be of little value in actually drawing meaningful conclusions.  We already know where the substantive changes have been made, and I published two editions of the Book of Mormon Critical Text at FARMS (1984-1987) which pointed out all of them.

As with the Bible, most scholars are more interested in establishing the earliest and most reliable form of the Book of Mormon in manuscript, the best example of that being Royal Skousen's Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text (Yale Univ. Press, 2009).

No argument here. Back when I worked for the church, an editor on our team was tasked with reviewing all LDS editions of the Book of Mormon, including scans of the printer's manuscript and the available original, plus some of the RLDS versions, as well. He had a pretty extensive set of files noting the differences, as well as a large-print edition he had marked up. He told me that, as far as he could see, the changes in the 1981 edition were, more often than not, attempts to reconcile the text with its earliest versions (particularly those versions touched by Joseph Smith (original ms, printer's ms, and 1837 and 1840 editions). Obviously, he didn't have the resources that Royal Skousen would have, but looking through his marked-up book, I agreed with him that the 1981 edition had been a pretty valiant effort at removing changes that had crept in with later editions. This same editor was later tasked with the same kind of effort with the Doctrine and Covenants, but he said it was a much more difficult process because in most cases, the original manuscripts of the revelations in the D&C were not available, and of course, many of the revelations were completely revised or rewritten for the 1835 D&C. Maybe the JSP project has helped.

Not coincidentally, Royal Skousen came to one our staff offsite training days to talk about his earliest text project (this was 1993, IIRC). Fascinating stuff. Having made my career in writing, editing, and publishing, I am nonplussed by textual changes. Any manuscript touched by human hands is going to change, and the idea that something printed is "pristine" from the beginning and set in stone is ridiculous. Most of the people I know who make a big deal about Book of Mormon changes are the kind of people who think the Bible is inerrant, so "the most correct of any book on earth" must be equally inerrant and God-breathed. Any changes, they suppose, destroy its validity as scripture because a changed text is not an inerrant text. Of course, most members of the LDS church are not inerrantists, so this argument falls pretty flat.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

No argument here. Back when I worked for the church, an editor on our team was tasked with reviewing all LDS editions of the Book of Mormon, including scans of the printer's manuscript and the available original, plus some of the RLDS versions, as well. He had a pretty extensive set of files noting the differences, as well as a large-print edition he had marked up. He told me that, as far as he could see, the changes in the 1981 edition were, more often than not, attempts to reconcile the text with its earliest versions (particularly those versions touched by Joseph Smith (original ms, printer's ms, and 1837 and 1840 editions). Obviously, he didn't have the resources that Royal Skousen would have, but looking through his marked-up book, I agreed with him that the 1981 edition had been a pretty valiant effort at removing changes that had crept in with later editions. This same editor was later tasked with the same kind of effort with the Doctrine and Covenants, but he said it was a much more difficult process because in most cases, the original manuscripts of the revelations in the D&C were not available, and of course, many of the revelations were completely revised or rewritten for the 1835 D&C. Maybe the JSP project has helped.

Fascinating that you were editing for the Church back then.  I give some of the history of the work leading up to the 1981 edition changes in my book review, “’If There Be Faults, They Be Faults of a Man’,” Interpreter, 8 (2014):195-203, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/if-there-be-faults-they-be-faults-of-a-man/ .  Stan Larson's BYU master's thesis was the source of most of those changes -- through his professor, Ellis Rasmussen, who planned it all out.  Even BYU student Jeff Holland wrote a paper on that same subject which was helpful.  Still, the changes/corrections have not gone far enough:  For example, the latest Book of Mormon edition still misspells "Sun of Righteousness" because of failure to see the homophonous nature of the word "Son."

The JSP Project has helped many of those who just didn't know that most early manuscripts of the revelations exist and were well cared for.

Not coincidentally, Royal Skousen came to one our staff offsite training days to talk about his earliest text project (this was 1993, IIRC). Fascinating stuff. Having made my career in writing, editing, and publishing, I am nonplussed by textual changes. Any manuscript touched by human hands is going to change, and the idea that something printed is "pristine" from the beginning and set in stone is ridiculous. .........................................................

Royal Skousen advised me in preparation for my second edition of the BofM Crirtical Text at FARMS, and he took over the Critical Text Project after I left Provo in 1987.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

One of the things a proof-texting approach, rather than a contextualizing approach does, is overlook the Book of Mormon passages that make equivalent use of skins and garments, whether white, filthy, or pure, as well as those that mention that for some, skins are garments.  And that even before contextualizing the way that Robert points out above, looking at Hebrew and even Egyptian uses.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Yes, and some of the figurative expressions bear direct comparison:

Acts 9:18, “And  immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith” // 2 Nephi 30:6, “their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white [pure] and delightsome people.”

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/12/2016 at 3:42 PM, Nevo said:

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

I suppose I could turn this around. How is it that you see evidences confirming the ancient origin of the Book of Mormon at the drop of a hat, where David P. Wright sees anachronisms based on his detailed familiarity with biblical texts?  

I do think that Benjamin's explicit Christianity, informed as it is by the New Testament and centuries of Christian theological reflection, is a glaring anachronism.

Just received this from Julia Blum, associate professor of biblical studies at eTeacherBiblical in Ramat Gan, Israel.

Quote

According to Mt. 1:21, God gave his Son the name Yeshua “for it is he who will save his people from their sins." In English, no connection can be seen between Jesus’ name and Him saving people. However, for Hebrew speakers this connection is quite clear. How? And what is the hidden meaning inside Jesus' name that got completely lost in translation? 

  Her boss, Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg, dean of Jewish Studies at eTeacher said this:

Quote

Knowing the origin and the meaning of the Biblical words is a crucial aspect in understanding the true meaning of the Holy Scripture.

So much meaning is lost and becomes unintelligible when looked at with only modern eyes.

[Nevo]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Just received this from Julia Blum, associate professor of biblical studies at eTeacherBiblical in Ramat Gan, Israel.

Her boss, Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg, dean of Jewish Studies at eTeacher said this:

Perhaps you can ask Professors Blum and Lizorkin-Eyzenberg whether they think the following passages date to the second century BCE (feel free to substitute Hebrew/Aramaic/Egyptian as needed to ensure that no hidden meanings are lost):

Quote

5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, Lord Omnipotent 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.

6 And he shall cast out devils, or the evil spirits which dwell in the hearts of the children of men.

7 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.

8 And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

9 And lo, he cometh unto his own, that salvation might come unto the children of men even through faith on his name; and even after all this they shall consider him a man, and say that he hath a devil, and shall scourge him, and shall crucify him.

10 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.

11 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.

12 But wo, wo unto him who knoweth that he rebelleth against God! For salvation cometh to none such except it be through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ.

(Mosiah 3:5–12)

I'm interested to hear their response as they consider the above with "ancient eyes."

Edited July 14, 2016 by Nevo

[Kevin Christensen]

Nevo says:
  Given that the "big picture" suggests Joseph Smith as author, and that King Benjamin plainly uses nineteenth-century revival language and imagery, and that the entire sermon is a Christian homily, I think the odds are against a real-world pre-Columbian Mesoamerican setting.
 
Robert dealt with some of the unikely things Nevo mentioned.  Nibley provides accounts, not only of crowds chanting in unison in historical accounts, but also his personal experience witnessing such events.  And I notice that Nevo doesn’t directly confront the physical details that match a very specific Mesoamerican setting, as discussed by Poulson, Gardner, and Sorenson.   So there is always selectivity and subjectivity going on in this sort of difference.
 
“a lot of the evidence adduced just doesn't seem very strong.”   Personally, I think a lot of it is very strong.  Does it make a difference if a person is weighing in terms of “cause to believe” or something that coerces belief?  Do we expect God to invite us, or compel us?  That might depend on whether God primarily values love or order.  What seems is not an existential quality, the same to all observers, but a function of our perspectives.
 
Regarding the woodcut of a revival, I’d find it a lot more persuasive  if there were a temple, if the platform were high enough so that people outside of the temple walls could see, if the people were in the tents with the doors facing the temple, and if there were a King/High Priest, holding in his hands a geneology, a royal orb, and a royal sword or even scepter.  And of course, if it showed a river that starting in a narrow strip of wilderness extending from the eastern sea to the western sea, flowing first from west to east, then north, was fordable near a site that dates to the proper time in a setting that provides evidence of being near the boundary of two language groups, and has indications in the central plaza of two groups of people uniting.  And south of cities of cement, with evidence of things like written language, and volcanic eruptions, since those sorts of things ought to survive the ravages of time and be in locations likely to draw the limited resources of archeologists.  If tents were the only things that mattered, a woodcut of a military camp would do to debunk Mosiah, say of Valley Forge with tents and ignore the snow and muskets.  But more matters.  It’s the combination of details that matters.
 
Nevo focuses on the how Welch and Szinc suggest that Mosiah 5:14 could relate to the scapegoat ritual in the Day of Atonement.
 

Quote

And again, doth a man take an *** which belongeth to his neighbor, and keep him? I say unto you, Nay; he will not even suffer that he shall feed among his flocks, but will drive him away, and cast him out. I say unto you, that even so shall it be among you if ye know not the name by which ye are called.

Nevo complains that that it’s the wrong animal, and that their example of the use of different animals is too early, “What's two millennia and different hemispheres among friends, right?”
 
Kuhn observes that “Science does not deal with all possible laboratory manipulations. Instead it selects those relevant to the juxtaposition of a paradigm with the immediate experience that the paradigm has partially determined. As a result, scientists with different paradigms engage in different concrete laboratory manipulations.” (Kuhn 126)
 
Relevant to the different ways that Nevo and I and Welch and Robert Smith and Nibley work here:

Quote

One perceptive historian, viewing a classic case of a science’s reorientation by paradigm change, recently described it as “picking up the other end of the stick,” a process that involves “handling the same bundle of data as before, but placing them in a new system of relations with one another by giving them a different framework.” Others who have noted this aspect of scientific advance have emphasized its similarity to a change in visual gestalt.” (Kuhn 85)

So one thing I note here is that Nevo addressed the Day of Atonement issue by the tail end of the stick, whereas Welch and Szinc make their suggestion towards their interpretation of that end of the data, in light of patterns they see up to that point, in comparison with the Day of Atonement, not the foundation upon which they build, but a bit of frosting to top what they build.  And that is why I suggested reading Barker’s essay on the Day of Atonement as another check, another comparison with Mosiah. 

Quote

For the great atonement a greater ritual was demanded. The high priest took blood into the holy of holies and when he emerged, he smeared and sprinkled it on various parts of the temple. Then he placed both his hands on the scapegoat, loaded the animal with the sins of the people, and sent it into the desert. Translated into temple terms this means: The LORD emerged from heaven carrying life which was given to all parts of the created order as the effects of sin were absorbed and wounds healed. The LORD then transferred the sins of the people, which he had been carrying, onto the goat, which was then driven away carrying the sins. The question which must be asked is: ‘Whose life did the |LORD use to restore the creation?’ or ‘Whose life did the blood represent?’

 ...
When lesser offences were kpr, the priest ‘carried’ the sin by virtue of eating the flesh of the animal whose life had effected the kpr. He identified with it. For the great kpr, the blood/life of the goat ‘as the LORD’ was a substitute for the blood/life of the high priest (also the LORD) who thus carried the sin of the people himself as he performed the act of kpr throughout the temple/creation. Thus, having collected the sins, he it was who was able to transfer them onto the goat who ‘carried’ them (ns`, Lev.16.22) and took them to the desert34. The role of the high priest, the LORD, was to remove the damaging effect of sin from the community and the creation, and thus to restore the bonds which held together the community and the creation. This is consistent with Mary Douglas’s observation about the peculiarity of biblical purity laws; many of the rituals were for reintegration not expulsion. I must now offer some corroborating evidence. First, from 1 Enoch again, chapter 47 which is part of the first Similitude. Each of the three Similitudes is a vision of the heavenly throne and the judgement, and it is easy enough to establish the identity of the central Man figure. He is called Son of Man (whatever that means), the Anointed One, and the Chosen One, and the simple process of matching phrases and descriptions shows that he was identical to Isaiah’s enigmatic Servant. The scene in chapter 47 is this: the Man figure has ascended to the throne, as in Daniel 7; then we learn that the blood of the Righteous One has been brought up to the LORD of Spirits, together with the prayers of the righteous ones. Then the judgement begins. The Righteous One elsewhere in the Similitudes (1 En.38.2; 53.6) is the Anointed One. M Black suggested that the Righteous One whose blood was brought before the LORD could be a reference to Isaiah 53, where the Servant, who makes righteous, pours out his life as an `asam. 

And this:

Quote

What I have proposed would explain why the LORD himself was the atonement sacrifice44. The whole point of the argument in the Epistle to the Hebrews is that it was Jesus the high priest who took his own blood into the heavenly sanctuary and thereby became the mediator of a new covenant (Heb.9.11-15). What I propose would explain the cosmic unity described in Ephesians 1.10: ‘to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth…’ and in Colossians 1.17,20: ‘In him all things hold together,… through him to reconcile to himself all things whether on earth or in heaven…’ It would explain Matthew’s use of the Servant text ‘he took our infirmities and bore our diseases’ in the context of healing miracles (Mat.8.17). It would explain why a sermon in Acts refers to Jesus as the Righteous One and the Servant but also as the Author of Life (Acts 3.13-15). It would explain all the new life and new creation imagery in the New Testament. Above all it would explain the so-called kenotic hymn in Philippians2.6-11; the self-emptying of the Servant would have been the symbolic life giving when the blood, the life, was poured out by the high priest on the Day of Atonement to heal and restore the creation.45 

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

Perhaps you can ask Professors Blum and Lizorkin-Eyzenberg whether they think the following passages date to the second century BCE (feel free to substitute Hebrew/Aramaic/Egyptian as needed to ensure that no hidden meanings are lost):

I'm interested to hear their response as they consider the above with "ancient eyes."

I am surprised at your failure, Nevo, to respond to the points made publicly by Blum and Lizorkin-Eyzenberg, since you are normally unafraid to address such issues.  Those are simply details in the much broader demonstration that Jewish tradition is unitary from OT thru NT times, and that the discontinuity which you think see is a surface artifact of the bifurcation over time of Christianity and Judaism.  I have no problem exploring the sources and implications of the texts parallel with Mosiah 3:5-12 (nor with the entirety of Benjamin's address, nor of the entire BofM, and my own editions of the Book of Mormon Critical Text published by FARMS 1984-1987 are the best place to start), but it might be better to take a closer look at the example given by a neutral Jewish scholar like Blum:

In the case she cites (Matt 1:21), we find the formal name and etymology of "Jesus" presented by an angel before Jesus is born.  Yeshua means "Salvation," which appears frequently in OT texts, which might often also be read "Jesus, Yeshua."  This makes all the difference, and the same applies to formal quotations of OT texts in the NT, but which you read in slightly altered English (KJV), and which masks the impact even of direct quotatons: 

(MT) Psalm 2:2	(LXX and) Acts 4:26
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed,	The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.

Indeed, in her very pointed analysis of the Book of Mormon, Margaret Barker observes that “finding Christ in the Old Testament is exactly what we should expect, . . .”[1]  Do you get the point, Nevo?  Because it is a significant point to make and understand.

---

[1] Barker, “Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion,” paper delivered in 2005, in Washington, DC, and published in J. Welch, ed., The Worlds of Joseph Smith: A Bicentennial Conference at the Library of Congress (Provo: BYU Press, 2006), 79.

 

Edited July 15, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Nevo]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am surprised at your failure, Nevo, to respond to the points made publicly by Blum and Lizorkin-Eyzenberg, since you are normally unafraid to address such issues.  

You are surprised at my "failure" to respond to two fairly innocuous, uncontroversial and, it must be said, rather obvious points? What is there to say? I agree that "in English, no connection can be seen between Jesus' name and Him saving people," while the connection to salvation is clearer to Hebrew speakers. I also agree with the observation that "knowing the origin and the meaning of the biblical words" is essential to gaining a fuller understanding and appreciation of the Hebrew scriptures.

Now what does any of that have to do with my statement that "Benjamin's explicit Christianity, informed as it is by the New Testament and centuries of Christian theological reflection, is a glaring anachronism"? Surely you recognize that the problems go well beyond Benjamin's use of the name "Jesus Christ."

You write that "Jewish tradition is unitary from OT thru NT times, and . . . the discontinuity which you think [you] see is a surface artifact of the bifurcation over time of Christianity and Judaism." Both of these claims are nonsense. Jews in the first century CE had very different beliefs and practices than did Judahites in, say, the eighth-century BCE (and there was substantial diversity within each period too). Ideas about sin, atonement, the afterlife, national and individual "salvation," resurrection, the Messiah, the end of the world, etc., all underwent considerable change during the time between Isaiah and Christ, shaped by the experience of exile, Persian influences, the adoption of Aramaic, Hellenization, Roman rule, etc. What we find in Benjamin's speech is full-fledged post-70 CE Christianity.

Take the concept of sin. The Catholic Old Testament scholar, Gary Anderson, has noted that sin was originally conceived in the OT as a weight but by NT times came to be thought of primarily in terms of a debt. He writes: "In studying how debt came to replace the notion of weight with regard to sin . . . we see the fundamental changes in thinking that occurred during the era of Persian rule (538–333 BCE). Linguistically, these changes were tied to the rise in stature and influence of Aramaic. . . . One of the linguistic items that came on board was the construal of sin as a debt, a metaphor implied in the Aramaic tongue, but not in the Hebrew" (Gary A. Anderson, Sin: A History [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009], 7–8). Naturally, Benjamin follows the later usage: "whosoever should believe that Christ should come, the same might receive remission of their sins" (Mosiah 3:13; cf. 4:11, 20).

Regarding pre-exilic ideas about the afterlife, Susan Niditch has written: "In ancient Israel, those who die pass into an underworld across the river to take up a shadowy existence as a shade or a ghost (Job 33.18). Biblical authors describe the underworld, Sheol, 'the recesses of the Pit' (Isa. 14.15), as a gloomy, dark place (Job 10.22, 26), where all hierarchy and claims to former status are erased (Isa. 14.9–11). . . . The peace of the underworld is afforded only to those who have received proper burial. . . . God is a god of the living, and the dead cannot praise the Lord (Ps. 115.17)" (Susan Niditch, "Experiencing the Divine: Heavenly Visits, Earthly Encounters and the Land of the Dead," in Religious Diversity in Ancient Israel and Judah, ed. Francesca Stavrakopoulou and John Barton [London: T&T Clark, 2010], 20–22). Benjamin, by contrast, anticipates a glorious afterlife: his "immortal spirit" will ascend to heaven and "join the choirs above in singing the praises of a just God" (Mosiah 2:28) and he invites his audience to reflect on "the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual; and if they hold out faithful to the end they are received into heaven, that thereby they may dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness" (2:41). Conversely, a fearsome fate awaits the wicked: "[he that] dieth in his sins, the same drinketh damnation to his own soul; for he receiveth for his wages an everlasting punishment" (2:33); "his final doom is to endure a never-ending torment" (2:39; cf. 3:25–27).

On the subject of messianic expectation, Marinus de Jonge has written: "One should realize that in the OT the term 'anointed' is never used of a future savior/redeemer, and that in later Jewish writings of the period between 200 B.C. and A.D. 100 the term is used only infrequently in connection with agents of divine deliverance expected in the future" (Marinus de Jonge, “Messiah,” Anchor Bible Dictionary [New York: Doubleday, 1992], 777). Benjamin, on the other hand, doesn't contemplate any "Christ" other than Jesus of Nazareth, who offers remission of sins and salvation through faith on his name. 

Benjamin also addresses post-biblical concepts, such as the Christian doctrine of the Fall (Mosiah 3:19), and concerns about the fate of the unevangelized (3:11) and infants that die without baptism (3:16, 18, 21). These are anachronisms not just at the level of language (and Benjamin employs nineteenth-century sermon rhetoric throughout his sermon) but at the level of content.

 

Edited July 15, 2016 by Nevo

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Nevo said:

You are surprised at my "failure" to respond to two fairly innocuous, uncontroversial and, it must be said, rather obvious points? What is there to say? I agree that "in English, no connection can be seen between Jesus' name and Him saving people," while the connection to salvation is clearer to Hebrew speakers. I also agree with the observation that "knowing the origin and the meaning of the biblical words" is essential to gaining a fuller understanding and appreciation of the Hebrew scriptures.

Now what does any of that have to do with my statement that "Benjamin's explicit Christianity, informed as it is by the New Testament and centuries of Christian theological reflection, is a glaring anachronism"? Surely you recognize that the problems go well beyond Benjamin's use of the name "Jesus Christ."

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

That's what I'm talkin about, and that's the Nevo we have come to know and love.   

Of course, you know that I was just getting started with some basics which are fully unknown to the hoi polloi.  Such defining of religious technical terms is essential as a first step, and is operative across the board -- even though you suggest that it is not.  However, it is much too late just now to get started on that adventure.  Must wait till daylight, maybe after I have had some sleep and then do some indexing for Familysearch.org  (they have marathon indexing this weekend, https://familysearch.org/worldsrecords?cid=hp-wi16-4877 ).

[Kevin Christensen]

It's always dicy, I think reconstructing Ancient Israel's beliefs on the basis of limited information, particularly when that information shows signs of editing, selection, as well as chance.  Regarding beliefs about the afterlife,

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1382&index=2

A part of the discussion is this:

Quote

In the Grofs’ discussion, the process of psychological death and rebirth “bears a striking similarity to the events described through the ages in shamanistic initiation, rites of passage, temple mysteries, and in the ecstatic religions of many ancient and preliterate cultures.”¹² They identify the first of three stages as cosmic engulfment, related to the onset of biological delivery, beginning with “an overwhelming feeling of anxiety and an awareness of a vital threat.”¹³ This corresponds to Alma’s shock at seeing the angel.

The second stage is no exit, related to “the second stage of delivery in which uterine contractions encroach on the foetus, but the cervix is closed.” Subjectively, “the situation is inescapable and eternal. There is no hope and no way out either in space or in time.”¹⁴

Notice how Alma describes a longing for annihilation while he felt “racked with eternal torment,” being “encircled about by the everlasting chains of death” (Alma 36:12, 18). Concerning “the ordeal of hell,” the Grofs write:

The feeling that suffering is eternal is an essential experimental attribute of hell. The endlessness of this state does not consist in an extreme extension of linear time, but in its transcendence. The individual undergoes tortures beyond any imagining which at that point are the only available reality; since the sense of the linear flow of time is lost, there appears to be no way out. It is only when this situation is fully accepted that one has experienced hell, and the journey can continue.¹⁵

In Alma’s account of his torment, the terms “everlasting” and “eternal” do not refer to duration, but to quality. Alma reports that his “eternal torment” lasted for three days (cf. D&C 19:1–21).

The third stage is the death-rebirth struggle. Again, the Grofs’ description illuminates Alma’s experience.

The “death and rebirth” phase represents the termination and resolution of the “death-rebirth struggle.” Suffering and agony culminate in an experience of total annihilation on all levels—physical, emotional, intellectual, moral, and transcendental. . . . Such annihilation is often followed by visions of blinding white or golden light and a sense of liberating decompression and expansion. The universe is perceived as indescribably beautiful and radiant; subjects feel themselves cleansed and purged, and speak of redemption, salvation, moksha, or samadhi. Numerous images of emerging into light from darkness, glorious opening of the heavens, revelation of the divine . . . and the final victory of the pure religious impulse, express this state of consciousness. . . . In death and rebirth mythologies, the correspondence is with the revival and resurrection of the sacrificed god.¹⁶

Alma’s Teachings about Life after Death Evidently, none of Alma’s three accounts gave the full details of his experience. Alma associated his teachings on life after death with the angel whose appearance triggered his NDE.

Now, concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life.

And then it shall come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow.

And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil. (Alma 40:11–14)

The thing to notice is that Alma teaches from experience, not from philosophy, tradition, or speculation.

This sort of thing, I notice, gets overlooked in narrow comparisons with Burnt Over District Revivals.  I re-read my heavily marked up copy of Thomas's Digging in Cumorah, where he argues for Revival conversion as the only necessary and sufficient model and problem field to account for the content of the Book of Mormon conversion accounts. 

Barker not only points out that the Deuteronomist editing obscures passages about seeing God, but also that Enoch and other non-Biblical but Jewish texts have information about the afterlife that the Bible does not contain.  She points out that this was one of the points by which the Muslims argued for the superiority of the Quran, in that it did describe the afterlife.  Sometimes NDEs are accepted by a culture, and sometimes rejected and suppressed, but they have always been a presence throughout human history.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[mfbukowski]

On 7/14/2016 at 4:58 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

One of the things a proof-texting approach, rather than a contextualizing approach does, is overlook the Book of Mormon passages that make equivalent use of skins and garments, whether white, filthy, or pure, as well as those that mention that for some, skins are garments.  And that even before contextualizing the way that Robert points out above, looking at Hebrew and even Egyptian uses.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Not to mention Syriac and Gnostic sources.  I absolutely love the "Hymn of the Pearl" or "Hymn of the Soul" which to me as an investigator was "proof" that something like Mormonism existed in the first century.  My interpretation is that this poem symbolically reflects a perfect rendition of the plan of salvation in the story of a journey of a spirit from his "father's mansion" as he takes on various garments (a body) and confronts the evil of the world, triumphs, discards the garments and takes on new ones in the return to his father's mansion. It is important also to note that references to the "east" depict the journey toward the light, and the "west" toward darkness.  If you have not come across this, you must read it- ALL must read it in my opinion.  The parallels with Mormonism are striking.

The metaphorical usage of "clean garments" describing a pure soul are pervasive in ancient literature.  I am a great fan of Gnosticism and take many of the writings to be scriptural, for my own understanding but I seldom share them with others because of course they are not canonical. 

http://gnosis.org/library/hymnpearl.htm

One should also note the mirror references- to me a clear temple reference- and think of "through a glass darkly, but then face to face".  If one looks at the footnotes for that passage in the LDS referenced scriptures, it references "veil".   The symbolism here is powerful and every time I read it it gives me chills to think that this was written in the first century.  To me, this should be canon!

Edited July 15, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Palerider]

Since I recognized that Mormonism was an admixture of Christianity and mythology, it became easier to strip away the false doctrines from the main doctrine of Christianity, which is that Jesus is the Christ. I received that testimony from the reading of the New Testament which indeed has what one might call "empirical adequacy". Yes, it may have a few problems but at least I can go and visit Jerusalem which actually exists and many other evidences which at least put The Biblical scriptures in the realm of reality.

Unfortunately the BofM has no empirical adequacy and when I read it, I get this creeping feeling that even though it "testifies" of Christ, it is in essence an 18th century creation.

I think this is where many Mormons make the mistake of permanently locking their faith and testimony of Christ, (and all of the goodness that comes from Christ and that testimony,) to Joseph Smith.  It doesn't have to be that way.

We need to remember that Christ isn't going to say, "You belong to a church that has been added to and is only partially correct, so I'm not going to give you a testimony of the truthfulness of my resurrection and Sonship." How ridiculous to think such a thing. If God had operated that way after the apostasy, then Christianity wouldn't have survived down through the middle ages. Heavenly Father still gave people testimonies of Christ for 1800 years before Joseph Smith even though they weren't in completely "true" churches.

What we need to do instead of looking at "the church" as true or false, is separate these two issues out and ask ourselves what is the empirical adequacy for Joseph Smith and the BofM as opposed to the empirical adequacy for Christ. By inseparably joining the two, you force Mormons to swallow the nasty pill of irrational thinking and to live with the pain of cognitive dissonance. That is an unpleasant and I think eventually an untenable place to be.

 

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, Palerider said:

Since I recognized that Mormonism was an admixture of Christianity and mythology, it became easier to strip away the false doctrines from the main doctrine of Christianity, which is that Jesus is the Christ. I received that testimony from the reading of the New Testament which indeed has what one might call "empirical adequacy". Yes, it may have a few problems but at least I can go and visit Jerusalem which actually exists and many other evidences which at least put The Biblical scriptures in the realm of reality.

Unfortunately the BofM has no empirical adequacy and when I read it, I get this creeping feeling that even though it "testifies" of Christ, it is in essence an 18th century creation.

I think this is where many Mormons make the mistake of permanently locking their faith and testimony of Christ, (and all of the goodness that comes from Christ and that testimony,) to Joseph Smith.  It doesn't have to be that way.

We need to remember that Christ isn't going to say, "You belong to a church that has been added to and is only partially correct, so I'm not going to give you a testimony of the truthfulness of my resurrection and Sonship." How ridiculous to think such a thing. If God had operated that way after the apostasy, then Christianity wouldn't have survived down through the middle ages. Heavenly Father still gave people testimonies of Christ for 1800 years before Joseph Smith even though they weren't in completely "true" churches.

What we need to do instead of looking at "the church" as true or false, is separate these two issues out and ask ourselves what is the empirical adequacy for Joseph Smith and the BofM as opposed to the empirical adequacy for Christ. By inseparably joining the two, you force Mormons to swallow the nasty pill of irrational thinking and to live with the pain of cognitive dissonance. That is an unpleasant and I think eventually an untenable place to be.

 

Palerider, I think that an atheist would challenge you on your "empirical adequacy" test. Of a truth, Jerusalem exists, as do many of the places named in the Bible, and some exist but have different names. However, the existence of any of those places is not evidence for any of the events related in the Bible.

Can you provide empirical evidence, i.e. secular historical or scientific evidence that would sway an atheist for (1) A universal flood? (2) The sojourn of the Children of Israel for 430 years in Egypt, (3) the Exodus from Egypt (4) the parting of the Red Sea to allow the Children of Israel to cross on dry land, (5) the subsequent drowning of the Egyptian Army being swallowed up by the Red Sea.

As a pretty much TBM, I have found little to no secular evidence that would tend to support the belief that those events actually occurred. Empirical adequacy is not the reason I believe in Christ. That belief came before anything else. The LDS Church relies upon that belief, that testimony. If Christ failed to be, then there is no LDS Church. That is a spiritual, not adequacy, but necessity.

Glenn

[Palerider]

20 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Palerider, I think that an atheist would challenge you on your "empirical adequacy" test. Of a truth, Jerusalem exists, as do many of the places named in the Bible, and some exist but have different names. However, the existence of any of those places is not evidence for any of the events related in the Bible.

Can you provide empirical evidence, i.e. secular historical or scientific evidence that would sway an atheist for (1) A universal flood? (2) The sojourn of the Children of Israel for 430 years in Egypt, (3) the Exodus from Egypt (4) the parting of the Red Sea to allow the Children of Israel to cross on dry land, (5) the subsequent drowning of the Egyptian Army being swallowed up by the Red Sea.

As a pretty much TBM, I have found little to no secular evidence that would tend to support the belief that those events actually occurred. Empirical adequacy is not the reason I believe in Christ. That belief came before anything else. The LDS Church relies upon that belief, that testimony. If Christ failed to be, then there is no LDS Church. That is a spiritual, not adequacy, but necessity.

Glenn

Glenn,

This is a straw man argument. I'm not talking to an atheist am I....

I really don't care what an atheist thinks.

I'm talking to Mormons who are wondering why there is some good that comes through the LDS church and want to cling to that goodness that comes through Christ, but they have to contend with some bad, phony and weird stuff as well. And they wonder where that stuff comes from.  Just as the ancient Jews could see good things in the Law of Moses, it didn't stop the Pharisees and Sadducees from taking advantage of the weak and the well intentioned by changing or adding to the Law for their own profit.

Most apologists will say,  "Well, you can't get good fruit from a bad tree."   But the reality is that if the tree has had wild branches grafted in by men who are not inspired by God, then YES! you can get both good and bad fruit from the same tree. 

Empirical adequacy means that we at the very least have a jumping off point. Yes, there is an ancient city of Jerusalem. You can go there and visit and know that it exists in reality.

But the BofM doesn't even have the empirical adequacy of the Heaven's Gate cult where one could actually see Halley's comet even though the spaceship that was going to beam everyone up was invisible.

I suppose one could say, "Well.....BofM stories happened somewhere on the planet earth but there is certainly no independently confirmed evidence that it happened in upper state New York at the Hill Cumorah. Isn't the only reason the Central America theory for BofM lands emerged was because of the utter failure of the Hill Cumorah to show even the slightest evidence of the war that was thought to have taken place there?   

[thesometimesaint]

No. Even JS considered the finds in Mesoamerica as very much like his Book of Mormon. A careful reading of the Book of Mormon describes much more accurately Mesoamerican Indians than anything JS was familiar with.

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, Palerider said:

Glenn,

 

Empirical adequacy means that we at the very least have a jumping off point. Yes, there is an ancient city of Jerusalem. You can go there and visit and know that it exists in reality.

 

However you missed how inadequate that adequacy really is. But if that suits you, fine. I am just a comfortable with my own beliefs, especially my belief in Christ, despite the empirical inadequacies that are incumbent in the story of the resurrection.

Glenn

[Gervin]

On 7/15/2016 at 4:05 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course, you know that I was just getting started with some basics which are fully unknown to the hoi polloi.  Such defining of religious technical terms is essential as a first step, and is operative across the board -- even though you suggest that it is not.  However, it is much too late just now to get started on that adventure.  Must wait till daylight, maybe after I have had some sleep and then do some indexing for Familysearch.org  (they have marathon indexing this weekend, https://familysearch.org/worldsrecords?cid=hp-wi16-4877 ).

Was hoping Robert F. Smith wouldn't shy away from an interesting discussion.  Maybe the indexing was too much.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, Gervin said:

Was hoping Robert F. Smith wouldn't shy away from an interesting discussion.  Maybe the indexing was too much.

I am not getting up to speed as fast as I had hoped, Gervin, and, yes, the indexing overwhelmed me last weekend.  However, I got a lot of batches done.  I especially liked doing Alabama draft registrations from the 1940s.  They had lots of detail, and lots of "negroes" registered.  It gave me particular pleasure to put them into the record.

I'm glad that you are interested in my response to the particular issue which brings our focus back to the Bible (and to all associated literature) as it appears in the Book of Mormon.  A very important issue.  I beg your indulgence for a while longer.  Thanks.

[TheSkepticChristian]

On 7/16/2016 at 2:43 PM, thesometimesaint said:

No. Even JS considered the finds in Mesoamerica as very much like his Book of Mormon. A careful reading of the Book of Mormon describes much more accurately Mesoamerican Indians than anything JS was familiar with.

“There has been a shift more recently to finding Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon instead of finding the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica,” - Mark Wright 

That is probably not a scholarly analysis, that is simply the human brain looking for patterns and parallels. 

On 7/15/2016 at 5:01 PM, Glenn101 said:

The LDS Church relies upon that belief, that testimony

How can I tell the difference between the Holy Ghost and Patternicity? the Improbability Principle? 

[TheSkepticChristian]

On 7/5/2016 at 10:03 PM, Gervin said:

Tell me how you have used "interpretation" and "statistical likelihood" to determine that the linked names and references cannot (and never can) be used to conclude a person mentioned in the Bible existed.  

Oh come on! Mormonism is more likely to be true than the rest of the American Christian religions. 

Book of Mormon is also much better than the Bible, at least the Book of Mormon doesn't support slavery. 

[Glenn101]

10 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

How can I tell the difference between the Holy Ghost and Patternicity? the Improbability Principle? 

 I am not sure how the improbability principle applies to a communication from the Holy Ghost. However, since you are asking the question, I am assuming that you do not feel that you have ever such an experience. As for patternicity I can recall only two such communications in the past. One was when I was very young and believing. The other came at a point in my life where I had been humbled greatly. In both instances I received a communication that left an indelible impression on my mind. I have had other spiritual experiences since, but nothing that has approached the clarity and certainty of those two. But once a person experiences such a communication, all doubt about patternicity will be erased.

Of course there are some conditions that have to be met, some preparations of the part of one who wishes to receive such an assurance. maybe owe can look to the experience of Enos in the Book of Mormon as an example of how to prepare. Part of that preparation also is the resolve to act upon the message that would be given in such a communication.

 

Glenn

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

 I am not sure how the improbability principle applies to a communication from the Holy Ghost.

I am not saying it does, but it is possible because I can't tell the difference. Read the Improbability Principle.  

http://www.scientificamerican.com/store/books/the-improbability-principle/

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

 I can recall only two such communications in the past. One was when I was very young and believing. The other came at a point in my life where I had been humbled greatly. In both instances I received a communication that left an indelible impression on my mind. 

Please read about patternicity too. Your experiences may be real, but there are psychological explanations. 

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

I am assuming that you do not feel that you have ever such an experience.

I doubt it, certainly not an extraordinary spiritual experience. 

Edited July 20, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Jeanne]

On 7/14/2016 at 6:24 AM, jkwilliams said:

No argument here. Back when I worked for the church, an editor on our team was tasked with reviewing all LDS editions of the Book of Mormon, including scans of the printer's manuscript and the available original, plus some of the RLDS versions, as well. He had a pretty extensive set of files noting the differences, as well as a large-print edition he had marked up. He told me that, as far as he could see, the changes in the 1981 edition were, more often than not, attempts to reconcile the text with its earliest versions (particularly those versions touched by Joseph Smith (original ms, printer's ms, and 1837 and 1840 editions). Obviously, he didn't have the resources that Royal Skousen would have, but looking through his marked-up book, I agreed with him that the 1981 edition had been a pretty valiant effort at removing changes that had crept in with later editions. This same editor was later tasked with the same kind of effort with the Doctrine and Covenants, but he said it was a much more difficult process because in most cases, the original manuscripts of the revelations in the D&C were not available, and of course, many of the revelations were completely revised or rewritten for the 1835 D&C. Maybe the JSP project has helped.

Not coincidentally, Royal Skousen came to one our staff offsite training days to talk about his earliest text project (this was 1993, IIRC). Fascinating stuff. Having made my career in writing, editing, and publishing, I am nonplussed by textual changes. Any manuscript touched by human hands is going to change, and the idea that something printed is "pristine" from the beginning and set in stone is ridiculous. Most of the people I know who make a big deal about Book of Mormon changes are the kind of people who think the Bible is inerrant, so "the most correct of any book on earth" must be equally inerrant and God-breathed. Any changes, they suppose, destroy its validity as scripture because a changed text is not an inerrant text. Of course, most members of the LDS church are not inerrantists, so this argument falls pretty flat.

I would have loved this job.  Very interesting.  Do you miss it at all?

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I would have loved this job.  Very interesting.  Do you miss it at all?

I very much enjoyed working there, but it was like any other job, really, except for the weekly team devotional and the religious focus. I worked with some really wonderful people there, though I had a few unpleasant experiences, as with any other job (it was the only job where anyone has literally screamed at me). At the time it was my dream job. I had done an internship there when I was in grad school, and I was very sad when it ended. I had this hope that it would eventually turn into a job. After I finished grad school, I got a job in Provo at a smallish software company and was made team lead after a few months. About a year into that job, I got a call from my old manager at the Church Office Building asking if I wanted to come and work there. It was a "lateral move," as they say: the pay was a little better, but the benefits weren't as good. The only problem was that we had bought a home in Orem, so I had to commute by bus to downtown Salt Lake. After a year and a half, the commute was taking a toll on me. I was exhausted and had no time to work on my master's thesis (I was young men's president at the time), so we prayed hard that we'd be able to make a move closer to work, but we couldn't find a house close enough that we liked and could afford. Out of the blue, I got a job offer from a larger company in Provo, so no more commute, and the pay was much better. My wife and I both felt strongly this was an answer to prayer, so I took the job.

Looking back on it, I realize that being an editor at the church, although it was interesting and rewarding, used only a small fraction of my skills, and my career choices would have been considerably narrowed had I stayed. So, it was a good move for me, and I've never regretted it. I still have good friends who work there, and the job was fun. If nothing else, I'm glad I left because I would have been in a terrible position had I experienced my crisis of faith as a long-term church employee. I don't have it in me to fake it, but the skills I used there probably wouldn't have been very marketable.