The Tongue of Angels and the Expectation of Biblical Language

[Benjamin Seeker]

So, I have another hypothesis, and I'm interested to see what feedback the forum has for it. It isn't hinged on a faithful or skeptical view. I think it's neutral, and it could be incorporated into either dominant narrative.

I'm hoping for responses with evidence from primary sources either in favor or against what I'm suggesting.

The Hypothesis & its Book of Mormon Basis

Joseph Smith may have believed that his revelations, including translation texts, words of angels, and his voice of the Lord revelations, should largely be in recognizably scriptural language (mostly biblical, but I do recognize the possibility that JS may have recognized authority in other texts besides the Bible). When I say scriptural language, I don't just mean grammar and vocabulary, but I also mean phrases and passages of the biblical text. This approach to revelation is perhaps reflected, either as Nephi's inspired teachings or as the mind of JS depending on your viewpoint, in 2nd Nephi 32. As Nephi directed disciples on the path post-baptism and reception of the Holy Ghost, he pointed us towards divine guidance through the Holy Ghost and angels. Verse 3 reads,

Quote

  Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.

I think it is possible that the text is telling us that the Holy Ghost and Angels speak in literal scriptural language, as scripture is considered the word of God (Chirst). This connection is more strongly suggested by the phrase "feast upon the words of Christ," which to the reader is a injunction to read the scriptures. It should also be remembered that Christ is the God of the Book of Mormon, and therefore words of Christ and words or word of God may be fully synonymous. Another piece of evidence pointing to the equivalence of the "words of Christ" and the 'word of God' comes in the preceeding chapter's allusion to the tree of life vision (chapter 31 and 32 are linked as Nephi's comments in 32 are explicitly described as follow up to the concepts laid out in 31). 2 Ne 31:18 reads,

Quote

18 And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.

"Strait and narrow path" sounds like biblical language, but it's specific formulation is unique to the BOM and occurs in only one other chapter in the BOM (1st Nephi 8:20), which is Lehi's description of the path that leads to the tree of life. All of you have hopefully already now thought of the rod of iron and its representation of the "word of God" (1 Ne 15:23-24). Basically, chapter 31, presents the way to enter the straight and narrow path, which is through baptism by water and fire. After we have "entered in by the way" (2 Ne. 32:1), we hold to the rod or word of God by feasting "upon the words of Christ." I've pointed out these connections to underline the strong link 2 Ne 32 creates between the words of Angels/Holy Ghost and scripture.

If JS held this belief or something similar, then we would expect his revelations, visions, and angelic ministrations, etc. to be replete with biblical language, and they are. From the Father's and the Son's words in the first vision to angel Moroni's words to hundreds of examples of biblical intertextuality in JS' dictated revelations and translations, we get a yet undetermined number of quotations and allusions to the bible.

Jerusalem's Walls

Another evidence that is consistent with this idea is the walls of Jerusalem translation story. Edmund Briggs, in 1856, reported that Emma recounted,

Quote

[O]ne time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a sheet, and said, “Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?” When I answered “Yes,” he replied “Oh! I was afraid I had been deceived.” He had such limited knowledge of history at that time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls.

In 1877, Emma said,

Quote

He had not read the Bible enough to know that there were walls around Jerusalem, and he came and asked me if there were walls around the city of Jerusalem.

A third account by David Whitmer (not sure on the date of the account) makes my case. It reads,

Quote

“Smith was ignorant of the Bible[;] that when translating he first came to where Jerusalem was spoken of as a ‘Walled City’ he stopped until they got a Bible & showed him where the fact was recorded.”

So according to Emma, JS was afraid he'd been deceived or in other words, had received false revelation. Then according to Whitmer, he would not proceed with the translation until they had checked a Bible (I included Emma's 1877 remembrance because it also connected the occasion with the Bible). This doesn't make a case for JS expecting biblical language, but it does suggest that he weighed his revelations validity by the bible, at least in part. By dissecting this event we can see that JS was actively engaged in determining if his revelations were coming from God and that the Bible played a significant role in that analytical process.

I think this general approach could provide an explanation for one of the factors that led to the integral nature of biblical allusions in JS' revelations. However, it needs a lot more evidence! Any arguments and evidence, pro or con, are welcome.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[waveslider]

Either JS had revelation or he didn't. The fact that he wanted to make sure he wasn't being deceived is a good thing, since we know that Satan works through deception and can even appear as an angel of light, trying to deceive people into thinking that he is an angel sent from God.

Scripture, whether Bible or one of the other sources, isn't the word of God, but only contain the word of God. The word of God comes directly in the form of revelation. It can come to anyone who wants to try and live in harmony with God, most often in the form of personal revelation.

There are reasons why people take scriptures out of context and even think they are made up fairy tales or something, sometimes. It is because they don't hone their relationship with God and try to communicate with Him while reading and pondering them. When we pray and listen for answers, as we search the scriptures, we will gain the true meanings behind what was supposed to meant by them in the first place, one line upon the other. It won't matter what style the words were that got put there. Words, and sentence structures, only symbolize thoughts, in an imperfect manor, no matter how eloquent they can be. When we read the words with the same Holy Spirit that inspired what was written in the first place, we will more perfectly understand the true meanings regardless of faulty communication methods, or even missing items that may be missing from some scripture. The, "Iron Rod," doesn't mean scripture, it means literally, "The Word Of God." Without personal revelation we won't be able to gain the true meaning anyway.

[Benjamin Seeker]

43 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Either JS had revelation or he didn't.

Waveslider, I think you're perceiving an attack on your faith, but I promise that is not what I'm doing here. I'm trying to understand the nature of JS' revelations and offer a potential contributing factor to why the BOM and other of JS' revelations are replete with hundreds of phrases from the Bible. My hypothesis doesn't have any inference on whether revelation is real or valid or not. In fact, it hinges on Joseph Smith sincerely believing he was interacting with the divine.

Quote

The fact that he wanted to make sure he wasn't being deceived is a good thing, since we know that Satan works through deception and can even appear as an angel of light, trying to deceive people into thinking that he is an angel sent from God.

Agree. Joseph Smith being aware of his revelatory process is a good thing.

Quote

Scripture, whether Bible or one of the other sources, isn't the word of God, but only contain the word of God. The word of God comes directly in the form of revelation. It can come to anyone who wants to try and live in harmony with God, most often in the form of personal revelation.

Somewhat agree. Revelation is hierarchal. For example personal revelation is usually trumped by the canon, according to Mormon tradition and doctrine.

While we understand the difference between the Bible containing the word of God and the Bible being the word of God, JS may not have made such a significant distinction. The relevant article of faith reads, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the book Mormon to be the word of God."

Quote

There are reasons why people take scriptures out of context and even think they are made up fairy tales or something, sometimes. It is because they don't hone their relationship with God and try to communicate with Him while reading and pondering them. When we pray and listen for answers, as we search the scriptures, we will gain the true meanings behind what was supposed to meant by them in the first place, one line upon the other. It won't matter what style the words were that got put there. Words, and sentence structures, only symbolize thoughts, in an imperfect manor, no matter how eloquent they can be. When we read the words with the same Holy Spirit that inspired what was written in the first place, we will more perfectly understand the true meanings regardless of faulty communication methods, or even missing items that may be missing from some scripture. The, "Iron Rod," doesn't mean scripture, it means literally, "The Word Of God." Without personal revelation we won't be able to gain the true meaning anyway.

It seems that JS' revelations are very specific on wording. They use specific biblical phrases and even specific word choices to make doctrinal points. I'd suggest watching Nick Frederick's and Jan Martin's presentations from the Interpeter conference on the complexities of the language of the Book of Mormon to get the general idea: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/events/2015-exploring-the-complexities-in-the-english-language-of-the-book-of-mormon/conference-videos/. The entire conference points to the idea that the language is very specific and purposeful.

Also, Frederick, a faithful scholar and BYU professor, recently published a great book on the intertextuality between JS' revelations and translations with the Bible, which further demonstrates the point that biblical allusion is integral and purposeful in the BOM text: https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781611479065/The-Bible-Mormon-Scripture-and-the-Rhetoric-of-Allusivity#

Basically, wording matters, at least for JS' revelations apparently.

 

Edited December 2, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[waveslider]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Waveslider, I think you're perceiving an attack on your faith

No I didn't feel it was an attack on my faith. I have to admit that I didn't quite understand what exactly you were trying to get at though.

3 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

......personal revelation is usually trumped by the canon, according to Mormon tradition and doctrine.

I don't recall ever being taught this. I was always taught that we needed to pray about everything, no matter the source, be it written scripture, proclamations of revelation from the first presidency, talks, or lessons, etc.. I was taught that we can't live off of borrowed light. So to me personal revelation is key.

3 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the book Mormon to be the word of God."

Yes, I think it is semantics here though. For instance what does this scripture mean:

".....we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."
2 Nephi 25:23

Does the word, "After," refer to a timeline? or does it mean something like, "More than?" I have seen many people stressed so much that they find themselves addicted to anxiety pills just because of that one word's misunderstood meaning. I have also seen Evangelicals state that we don't believe in grace because of it's misunderstood interpretation. So without the guidance of the Holy Ghost to help us decipher the true meaning of scripture we will not see the word of God because of our own blinders in misunderstanding the symbolism of the choice of words the writers and/or translators used. Often times what was originally meant isn't what gets taken away from it when we decide to leave personal revelation out of it. Remember what Peter said:

"20  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
2 Peter 1:20-21

4 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Basically, wording matters, at least for JS' revelations apparently.

Yes, I agree one hundred percent that wording matters. I also know that no matter how good the wording is, we each have different interpretations of what any particular wording is symbolic of, so mistakes still happen when we read things that others have written. Again it takes personal revelation to understand more perfectly what was moving the holy men of God to write what they have written, even if the wording is extremely eloquent.

 

[Benjamin Seeker]

The following verses from the 2 Ne 29, if we treat them as an indication of early Mormonism's belief, suggest that the entire Bible was to be considered the word of God.

"6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

11 For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.

12 For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it."

The above verses are phrases in a way that supports the idea that all of the Bible is the word of God. JS' translation of the Bible further supports this as his revealed changes still incorporate most of the original KJV language. 

 

[RevTestament]

On 12/2/2016 at 9:46 AM, Benjamin Seeker said:

So, I have another hypothesis, and I'm interested to see what feedback the forum has for it. It isn't hinged on a faithful or skeptical view. I think it's neutral, and it could be incorporated into either dominant narrative.

I'm hoping for responses with evidence from primary sources either in favor or against what I'm suggesting.

The Hypothesis & its Book of Mormon Basis

Joseph Smith may have believed that his revelations, including translation texts, words of angels, and his voice of the Lord revelations, should largely be in recognizably scriptural language (mostly biblical, but I do recognize the possibility that JS may have recognized authority in other texts besides the Bible). When I say scriptural language, I don't just mean grammar and vocabulary, but I also mean phrases and passages of the biblical text. This approach to revelation is perhaps reflected, either as Nephi's inspired teachings or as the mind of JS depending on your viewpoint, in 2nd Nephi 32. As Nephi directed disciples on the path post-baptism and reception of the Holy Ghost, he pointed us towards divine guidance through the Holy Ghost and angels. Verse 3 reads,

I think it is possible that the text is telling us that the Holy Ghost and Angels speak in literal scriptural language, as scripture is considered the word of God (Chirst). This connection is more strongly suggested by the phrase "feast upon the words of Christ," which to the reader is a injunction to read the scriptures. It should also be remembered that Christ is the God of the Book of Mormon, and therefore words of Christ and words or word of God may be fully synonymous. Another piece of evidence pointing to the equivalence of the "words of Christ" and the 'word of God' comes in the preceeding chapter's allusion to the tree of life vision (chapter 31 and 32 are linked as Nephi's comments in 32 are explicitly described as follow up to the concepts laid out in 31). 2 Ne 31:18 reads,

"Strait and narrow path" sounds like biblical language, but it's specific formulation is unique to the BOM and occurs in only one other chapter in the BOM (1st Nephi 8:20), which is Lehi's description of the path that leads to the tree of life. All of you have hopefully already now thought of the rod of iron and its representation of the "word of God" (1 Ne 15:23-24). Basically, chapter 31, presents the way to enter the straight and narrow path, which is through baptism by water and fire. After we have "entered in by the way" (2 Ne. 32:1), we hold to the rod or word of God by feasting "upon the words of Christ." I've pointed out these connections to underline the strong link 2 Ne 32 creates between the words of Angels/Holy Ghost and scripture.

If JS held this belief or something similar, then we would expect his revelations, visions, and angelic ministrations, etc. to be replete with biblical language, and they are. From the Father's and the Son's words in the first vision to angel Moroni's words to hundreds of examples of biblical intertextuality in JS' dictated revelations and translations, we get a yet undetermined number of quotations and allusions to the bible.

John 1:1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 8:28

28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

John 12:49

49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 

Revelation too says that the Father revealed what John should write to Jesus, who was revealing it to John through an angel.

So yes, angels are messengers. That is in fact what "angel" means. Their words are what God sent them to say, and should be considered scripture.

Quote

I think this general approach could provide an explanation for one of the factors that led to the integral nature of biblical allusions in JS' revelations. However, it needs a lot more evidence! Any arguments and evidence, pro or con, are welcome.

Many of Joseph's revelations in D &C are specifically in reference to the Bible, prophecies, etc. Actually, rather than being about the BoM, they are specifically concerning understanding the Bible. This makes scripture concerning the Bible far outweigh the BoM in volume. Even the BoM does it. It continuously refers to Biblical prophecies, which makes it important, but I dare say perhaps not so important to be read and stressed independently as I often seem to hear church leaders do. All these scriptures are heavily biblically based - making the Bible of utmost importance in LDS theology. IMHO it seems to get short shrift though.

To be surprised at the "integral nature of biblical allusions" in the BoM and in the revelations of D&C is really almost a non-issue imho. Do I believe JS came up with these phrases himself? NO. He received direct revelation in a biblical language, because that is what the people knew and were familiar with. What other language would you expect God to use?

[Benjamin Seeker]

20 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 

Many of Joseph's revelations in D &C are specifically in reference to the Bible, prophecies, etc. Actually, rather than being about the BoM, they are specifically concerning understanding the Bible. This makes scripture concerning the Bible far outweigh the BoM in volume. Even the BoM does it. It continuously refers to Biblical prophecies, which makes it important, but I dare say perhaps not so important to be read and stressed independently as I often seem to hear church leaders do. All these scriptures are heavily biblically based - making the Bible of utmost importance in LDS theology. IMHO it seems to get short shrift though.

To be surprised at the "integral nature of biblical allusions" in the BoM and in the revelations of D&C is really almost a non-issue imho. Do I believe JS came up with these phrases himself? NO. He received direct revelation in a biblical language, because that is what the people knew and were familiar with. What other language would you expect God to use?

I'm with you. Biblical scripture is at the center of D&C and the BOM.

As far as as your last question goes, I think I may have found a deeper explanation than the hypothesis that the language was familiar. For example, "Be of good cheer" is familiar New Testament language. In fact, many quickly recognize the phrase as Christ's words from the gospels. Indeed, it is very familiar, easy to draw upon, and authoritative. However, having Ammon use those words in Alma 17:31, may cause us to raise an eyebrow due to it's anachronistic and even iconic nature. Yes, it can be explained as an artifact of translation, but why would God or JS choose to have Ammon speak such recognizable and iconic words of Christ? The choice seems to suggest something beyond mere familiarity.

If we say God is revealing the translation directly, which you do, than it is a conscious choice on God's part, and I don't think familiar language is a sufficient argument to justify the allusion. If we hypothesize that JS had some control over the word choice, like Brant Gardner does, then we might argue that the word choice was made by JS unconscious of it's specific New Testament allusion. However, just a couple of chapter later, Ammon does the same thing when he says, " Blessed art thou because of thy exceeding faith; I say unto thee, woman, there has not been such great faith among all the people of the Nephites," which is a clear allusion to Luke 7:9. If JS is responsible for these allusions, there are a sufficient number of them for us to guess that he was likely somewhat conscious of them. Basically, either God or JS is conscious, on some level, of these NT allusions, and I don't find familiarity a convincing enough argument. I think the translation/wording could still have been in biblical language without making references to specific New Testament passage, and without doing this commonly in dialogue, which it can be argued that the book of Mormon does. In other words, the familiarity and KJV style could have been created without so many specific, context appropriate allusions.

For these reasons, I think a deeper explanation of the BOM's biblical intertextuality is needed!

[RevTestament]

If you are saying there is a purposeful design to the wording in the Book of Mormon, I completely and totally agree.

The purpose thereof will become evident in the future.

 

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

The purpose thereof will become evident in the future.

I think it's purpose is already becoming evident. Nicholas Frederick's dissertation and newest book (https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781611479065/The-Bible-Mormon-Scripture-and-the-Rhetoric-of-Allusivity#) make a good case that BOM intertextuality with the new testament is purposefully drawing on, commenting on, and expanding doctrines from the NT. The presentation I cited above by Jan Martin at an Interpreter conference (http:// http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/events/2015-exploring-the-complexities-in-the-english-language-of-the-book-of-mormon/conference-videos/) shows how the BOM takes doctrinal stances by simple word choice. Finally, my hypothesis here suggests that JS may have believed biblical intertextuality was a significant spiritual measuring stick. Biblical intertextuality may have been one of his indicator's that the source was divine.

[mfbukowski]

On 12/2/2016 at 1:05 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

Revelation is hierarchal. For example personal revelation is usually trumped by the canon, according to Mormon tradition and doctrine.

I am not debating the point that this is how the issue is usually understood,  but this has always bothered me, since the bottom line is how we know that the canon is "true" is through personal revelation.  I see this as a basic contradiction.   It is akin to the idea that we should believe that the "prophet will never lead us astray" but the only way we CAN know that is through personal testimony.   I for one have never accepted the idea and always place personal revelation ahead of canon.  This is also true of the Bible for me, without personal testimony the Bible is just a bunch of legends.

[Benjamin Seeker]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am not debating the point that this is how the issue is usually understood,  but this has always bothered me, since the bottom line is how we know that the canon is "true" is through personal revelation.  I see this as a basic contradiction.   It is akin to the idea that we should believe that the "prophet will never lead us astray" but the only way we CAN know that is through personal testimony.   I for one have never accepted the idea and always place personal revelation ahead of canon.  This is also true of the Bible for me, without personal testimony the Bible is just a bunch of legends.

I actually agree with you. I was offering the heirachal view of revelation, particularly the authority of canon, as one of the factors that may have contributed to my hypothesis here.

[pogi]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I actually agree with you. I was offering the heirachal view of revelation, particularly the authority of canon, as one of the factors that may have contributed to my hypothesis here.

The word of God is the word of God.  The BoM witnesses to the truthfulness of the Bible, and the Bible to the BoM.  They are all witnesses of God.  I would argue that revelations are not "allusions" to the Bible any more than they are to any other book of scripture.  I think "testament" is a better word than "allusion".

[Benjamin Seeker]

19 hours ago, pogi said:

The word of God is the word of God.  The BoM witnesses to the truthfulness of the Bible, and the Bible to the BoM.  They are all witnesses of God.  I would argue that revelations are not "allusions" to the Bible any more than they are to any other book of scripture.  I think "testament" is a better word than "allusion".

Many faithful Mormon scholars have discussed Book of Mormon allusions to Biblical texts (ex. Benjamin McGuire, Nicholas Frederick, Grant Hardy). Nicholas Frederick, in particular has demonstrated some BoM allusions to New Testament texts. His dissertation is on the intertextuality between JS' revelations, including the BoM, and the prologue of the Gospel of John. I believe his latest book is built on that original research (I've linked to the book more than once above). His presentation at an Interpreter conference (a faithful apologetic journal, presentation linked to above), introduces the topic of biblical allusion in the Book of Mormon. He also proposed a methodology for analyzing the likely intentionality of potential NT allusions, or interactions as he suggests calling them to avoid controversy, in this article in BYU's Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=3592&index=1

Here is a presentation by Benjamin McGuire on Old Testament allusions in the Book of Mormon: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2001-fair-conference/2001-nephi-and-goliath-a-reappraisal-of-the-use-of-the-old-testament-in-first-nephi

Here is a BYU article on how 1st Nephi makes allusion to the Exodus: https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/jerusalem-zarahemla-literary-and-historical-studies-book-mormon/exodus-pattern-book-mormon

Edited December 8, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Many faithful Mormon scholars have discussed Book of Mormon allusions to Biblical texts (ex. Benjamin McGuire, Nicholas Frederick, Grant Hardy). Nicholas Frederick, in particular has demonstrated some BoM allusions to New Testament texts. His dissertation is on the intertextuality between JS' revelations, including the BoM, and the prologue of the Gospel of John. I believe his latest book is built on that original research (I've linked to the book more than once above). His presentation at an Interpreter conference (a faithful apologetic journal, presentation linked to above), introduces the topic of biblical allusion in the Book of Mormon. He also proposed a methodology for analyzing the likely intentionality of potential NT allusions, or interactions as he suggests calling them to avoid controversy, in this article in BYU's Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=3592&index=1

Here is a presentation by Benjamin McGuire on Old Testament allusions in the Book of Mormon: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2001-fair-conference/2001-nephi-and-goliath-a-reappraisal-of-the-use-of-the-old-testament-in-first-nephi

Here is a BYU article on how 1st Nephi makes allusion to the Exodus: https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/jerusalem-zarahemla-literary-and-historical-studies-book-mormon/exodus-pattern-book-mormon

 One thing that humans are especially good at is seeing patterns.  We are so inclined to look for and see patterns that we often see things that are not really there.  "The exodus pattern" mentioned in your links, sounds like a classic case of pareidolia to me.  Perhaps illusions and not "allusions" is a more accurate word to describe this phenomenon.

One section compared the "intertextuality" of the words of Abinidi with the writings of Paul.  When Abinidi predates Paul and the Bible, how could he possibly be making "allusions" to the Bible?

Why the similarity?  I don't know.  Perhaps for the same reason that Christ taught the same principles, using almost exactly the same words, to those in America as he taught to those in Jerusalem.  Both books are inspired by God and His words, and are therefore both allusions to God more so than to each other. 

That is my take anyway.  

Edited December 8, 2016 by pogi

[champatsch]

Ben, it is virtually impossible for Joseph to have been responsible for the language of the BofM from a hard linguistic perspective. What Joseph Knight and Martin Harris said was almost certainly correct. Sentences appeared to Joseph. Furthermore, Bushman in the foreword to Frederick's monograph mentions how the biblical intertextuality of the BofM is miraculous in its complexity and depth (page vii). A biblical expert of decades would have had difficulty constructing the text, let alone a twenty-something non-expert producing it all in three-months' time. I strongly advise you to seek a different path.

[Benjamin Seeker]

2 hours ago, champatsch said:

Ben, it is virtually impossible for Joseph to have been responsible for the language of the BofM from a hard linguistic perspective. What Joseph Knight and Martin Harris said was almost certainly correct. Sentences appeared to Joseph. Furthermore, Bushman in the foreword to Frederick's monograph mentions how the biblical intertextuality of the BofM is miraculous in its complexity and depth (page vii). A biblical expert of decades would have had difficulty constructing the text, let alone a twenty-something non-expert producing it all in three-months' time. I strongly advise you to seek a different path.

To clarify, my hypothesis here doesn't depend on the premise of JS creating or contributing to the language of the BOM. It only suggests JS's perception of biblical language as a gauge of his revelation's validity. Essentially, the presence of biblical language in his revelations (and translations) may have served as an indicator to JS that the source was divine. This idea can work if JS has no responsibility for the language found in his revelations/translations or if he subconsciously or even consciously affected the resulting text, which latter possibilities I understand that you object to.

Also, I'm glad you shared that bit about Bushman's forward. I agree that the biblical intertextuality in BOM does have fantastic depth. No question there. What I'm doing here is looking at one of multiple possible functions of biblical language in JS revelations/translations.

EDIT: I should add that just because I use 2 Ne. 32 as an indication of what JS may have believed, it doesn't mean that JS had to have authored that text. One could posit that 2 Ne. 32 reflects truth consistent with JS' beliefs though not a result of his beliefs. He simply could have learned it previously through experience, revelation, etc.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[mfbukowski]

On 12/8/2016 at 2:03 PM, pogi said:

 One thing that humans are especially good at is seeing patterns.  We are so inclined to look for and see patterns that we often see things that are not really there.  "The exodus pattern" mentioned in your links, sounds like a classic case of pareidolia to me.  Perhaps illusions and not "allusions" is a more accurate word to describe this phenomenon.

One section compared the "intertextuality" of the words of Abinidi with the writings of Paul.  When Abinidi predates Paul and the Bible, how could he possibly be making "allusions" to the Bible?

Why the similarity?  I don't know.  Perhaps for the same reason that Christ taught the same principles, using almost exactly the same words, to those in America as he taught to those in Jerusalem.  Both books are inspired by God and His words, and are therefore both allusions to God more so than to each other. 

That is my take anyway.  

I joined the church at age 31 after nearly finishing my master's in philosophy at secular universities,  because I did not want to teach and after feeling I had solved all the philosophical problems that were troubling me.

Never in my life as a Mormon have I been able to muster as much faith in BOM historicity as I see demonstrated here.  I kind of envy that, because constant skepticism has tainted my experience of the BOM.

I kind of admire the ability to have such unquestioning faith that Abinidi actually in the real world, lived before Paul.  I have accepted that sort of thing as anachronistic from the beginning, and have by now made it such a habit to not even think twice about what Joseph thought about history was in his mind only, that I almost see it as shocking that one would make such an argument.  I still read the BOM totally for spiritual value, never once thinking that it is historical, though I have no problem with the idea that it could be historical.   It's just that my default way of seeing it is that "of course it is NOT historical".

But I really like your posts and admire your faith.  Mine is based on testimony and spiritual experience, as yours is too I think is, and indeed I have no problem believing that Abinidi actually DID live before Paul, but NEVER do I think that way consciously.

In my heart of hearts, I remain a total skeptic but totally converted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  I take it on faith that it could be historical, but that is irrelevant to my usual way of thinking.

I respect and admire you and like your posts immensely but I just cannot bring myself to actually think that way.  Maybe someday!

[Glenn101]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I joined the church at age 31 after nearly finishing my master's in philosophy at secular universities,  because I did not want to teach and after feeling I had solved all the philosophical problems that were troubling me.

Never in my life as a Mormon have I been able to muster as much faith in BOM historicity as I see demonstrated here.  I kind of envy that, because constant skepticism has tainted my experience of the BOM.

I kind of admire the ability to have such unquestioning faith that Abinidi actually in the real world, lived before Paul.  I have accepted that sort of thing as anachronistic from the beginning, and have by now made it such a habit to not even think twice about what Joseph thought about history was in his mind only, that I almost see it as shocking that one would make such an argument.  I still read the BOM totally for spiritual value, never once thinking that it is historical, though I have no problem with the idea that it could be historical.   It's just that my default way of seeing it is that "of course it is NOT historical".

But I really like your posts and admire your faith.  Mine is based on testimony and spiritual experience, as yours is too I think is, and indeed I have no problem believing that Abinidi actually DID live before Paul, but NEVER do I think that way consciously.

In my heart of hearts, I remain a total skeptic but totally converted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  I take it on faith that it could be historical, but that is irrelevant to my usual way of thinking.

I respect and admire you and like your posts immensely but I just cannot bring myself to actually think that way.  Maybe someday!

You are a strange man Mark. I am pretty much of a TBM literalist when it comes to the Book of Mormon (as most denizens of this board are probably well aware). Up until a few years ago I never even though about the historicity one way or the other. I just accepted it. My paradigms about it have shifted over the years, but not my core beliefs. I do admire the path that brought you to the church though and get lost in your philosophical forays easily. Your philosophical musings and journey have brought you to the same place that I stand, pretty much.

Glenn

[pogi]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

In my heart of hearts, I remain a total skeptic but totally converted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  I take it on faith that it could be historical, but that is irrelevant to my usual way of thinking.

Well said.  You and I are no different in that respect Mark.  The difference between our approach perhaps comes from the fact that I was born and raised on the historicity of the Book of Mormon.  From a young age, the story of Nephi crossing the great waters was as real to me as the story of Brigham crossing the plains.  The story of Moroni burying the plates in the Hill Cumorah was as real to me as the story of Jesus being born in a manger.  So, I am like Glenn very much in that respect in that it wasn't until a few years ago that I even thought about the historicity one way or the other. 

I have to say that growing up and learning a thing or two has been fairly difficult for me.  I find it incredibly difficult to argue in favor of the historicity, but I also find it incredibly difficult to argue from any other angle (and I frequently do both because I find both approaches spiritually valid).  I tend to fall more in favor of the idea that these were real people, probably because of my upbringing (I am certainly biased), because the idea of losing the historicity of the Book of Mormon would be to me like losing an old friend in Nephi and in Jacob and in King Benjamin.  Imagine learning that Peter, Paul, or even Christ were not real historical figures, that is what the loss feels like for me in losing the historicity of the Book of Mormon figures - so I like to hold on to them for as long as I can. 

I too take it on faith that it could be historical, but I have come to accept that it might not be.  Either way I remain unmoved in my faith.  I don't know much, but the one thing I do know is that the Lord is very happy with the path that I am on.  Until He leads me elsewhere, the Mormons are stuck with me. 

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

You are a strange man Mark.

You have been talking to my wife again, haven't you?  

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

Well said.  You and I are no different in that respect Mark.  The difference between our approach perhaps comes from the fact that I was born and raised on the historicity of the Book of Mormon.  From a young age, the story of Nephi crossing the great waters was as real to me as the story of Brigham crossing the plains.  The story of Moroni burying the plates in the Hill Cumorah was as real to me as the story of Jesus being born in a manger.  So, I am like Glenn very much in that respect in that it wasn't until a few years ago that I even thought about the historicity one way or the other. 

I have to say that growing up and learning a thing or two has been fairly difficult for me.  I find it incredibly difficult to argue in favor of the historicity, but I also find it incredibly difficult to argue from any other angle (and I frequently do both because I find both approaches spiritually valid).  I tend to fall more in favor of the idea that these were real people, probably because of my upbringing (I am certainly biased), because the idea of losing the historicity of the Book of Mormon would be to me like losing an old friend in Nephi and in Jacob and in King Benjamin.  Imagine learning that Peter, Paul, or even Christ were not real historical figures, that is what the loss feels like for me in losing the historicity of the Book of Mormon figures - so I like to hold on to them for as long as I can. 

I too take it on faith that it could be historical, but I have come to accept that it might not be.  Either way I remain unmoved in my faith.  I don't know much, but the one thing I do know is that the Lord is very happy with the path that I am on.  Until He leads me elsewhere, the Mormons are stuck with me. 

Yeah, I am completely with you on that one!

I am thinking of starting a thread titled "you are what you believe".  There is an interesting long article in the latest December National Geographic about faith and healing and the "placebo effect"- when you think about it, the placebo effect is just a skeptical name for unexplained healing that happens "psychosomatically" and from our point of view could just as much be supernatural as not in reality.   I am sure in your profession, if I remember correctly, you are quite familiar with this view and have seen many instances of faith healing.

It discussed a person who was told he needed a brain operation, as part of a double blind experiment.  His ailment was quite real, but he was in a test group which did not receive the operation, but did have an incision made in his head and was treated in the hospital completely as if he actually had the operation.

The result was that he was completely cured and was not the only one who had similar results.   What was found was that the person had to totally believe that the operation was completely real for the effect to work.

After a period of time, the experiment subjects were told that they had received the "fake" operation and some were not surprised and accepted it, and this had a profound effect on their lives- realizing the power of belief and had a new appreciation for the power of the mind, or as we might say it, in the power of the spirit and acting in faith that an outcome would happen and faith itself producing the result.  I think I got those details right- I will have to review the circumstances before I start the thread.

I see in that a parallel with a belief in historicity of scripture- not only in the BOM but also in the Bible.  People will say that if they did not believe that Jesus actually existed, that they could never feel the affect of the atonement in their lives and the peace it gives them, or that if the Book of Mormon is not historic, they could never believe the doctrine.

But when you reflect on this- you realize that it is the BELIEF itself that produces the effects that are desired.   The spirit/mind is extremely powerful and God uses this power to create worlds.   I have often wondered if God even needed to have Jesus die to forgive sin and for us to forgive ourselves for our debts as we forgive our debtors.  The manuscripts we have are not contemporaneous with the events.  In my strange mind, who knows what happened "in reality" or if God himself uses the "placebo effect" to teach us that we do not need "the operation" to be healed!   Perhaps when we get to the other side and the secret is revealed, we will be as surprised as those who received fake operations and be able to have more faith in our own abilities to create worlds through our minds alone.

I think of the story of Peter at first walking on water and then losing faith and starting to sink.   Is that just a parable to teach us what we can do if we had full faith, or did it "really happen"?

We will never know by natural means on this side of the veil.

When we are in the realm of the spirit and emotions and what is psychologically important in our lives, belief is as important as reality.  What we believe IS our reality when "what really happened" is completely unknowable by anyone.

It is the BELIEF that changes our lives UNTIL we get to the point where we understand that BELIEF is all it takes.   The event we believe in need not ever have happened in order to change our lives in every way possible, because in the final analysis, the BELIEF itself has the power to do it all on its own.

We never know the power of the mind/spirit until we experience it.  At that point we know that reality is what we make of it and we are creating our own worlds from matter unorganized.

Edited December 11, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Glenn101]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You have been talking to my wife again, haven't you?  

No, but I bet it would be a really interesting experience. The tales I imagine she could tell!!!

[Glenn101]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But when you reflect on this- you realize that it is the BELIEF itself that produces the effects that are desired.   The spirit/mind is extremely powerful and God uses this power to create worlds.   I have often wondered if God even needed to have Jesus die to forgive sin and for us to forgive ourselves for our debts as we forgive our debtors.  The manuscripts we have are not contemporaneous with the events.  In my strange mind, who knows what happened "in reality" or if God himself uses the "placebo effect" to teach us that we do not need "the operation" to be healed!   Perhaps when we get to the other side and the secret is revealed, we will be as surprised as those who received fake operations and be able to have more faith in our own abilities to create worlds through our minds alone.

Maybe it starts with the desire to believe in the first place. Those who had received those placebo operations definitely had the motivation for that desire. That seems to have been the idea behind Alma's words to the poor Zoramites Alma 32, to start out just with the desire to believe.

Would you mind sharing what started you on that path from atheist to LDS? What was i that germinated your desire to believe?

Glenn

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Maybe it starts with the desire to believe in the first place. Those who had received those placebo operations definitely had the motivation for that desire. That seems to have been the idea behind Alma's words to the poor Zoramites Alma 32, to start out just with the desire to believe.

Would you mind sharing what started you on that path from atheist to LDS? What was i that germinated your desire to believe?

Glenn

I was raised Catholic and was an altar boy and had spiritual experiences as a child.

Then I did what many do- as I became a teenager and hit college, I wanted to know about philosophy and study epistemology and ended up thinking that there was no way you could know what a God wanted of you even if you felt he existed, and I saw no reason to think that He did.  Clearly, I thought that all that stuff I felt as a child was just nonsense like being excited waiting for Santa Claus to arrive.  I saw the philosophy that Catholicism is based on was no longer viable as a philosophy and hadn't been viable to other philosophers for at least 400 years. 

So I started looking for a philosophy that made sense to me.   I was a humanist.  I believed that humans created God as a projection of themselves thinking of an anthropomorphic God.  God did not create us- we created God.  In fact we created all that we knew about "reality" as a social construction.  There was no way we could know that our ideas conformed to the world- unless we could step outside of our thoughts and see the world independent of our thoughts and compare the THOUGHTS to the "real" world NOT in our thoughts

But guess what- it was a catch 22- we could not get outside our thoughts to do that!  So the whole idea of truth was ridiculous- there is no such thing as being able to know what is NOT in our thoughts.   We could only see the world inside our minds- and never get outside our minds to know what was "out there"

I saw that religion was trying to do exactly that- it was speaking about a realm outside of us that we could not in principle know anything about.  Religious experience was just "in our heads"

Then I read the pragmatists like William James who admitted that it was all "in our heads" but affirmed THAT as reality itself- because pragmatically for us it WAS reality

If everything was "in our heads" then in a sense for practical purposes that whole idea became irrelevant because what mattered were things AS WE SAW THEM.

Yes we created religious experience - and everything else we can know- because EVERYTHING was "in our heads".  Humans created all of reality as humans know it because we cannot know anything else than what humans can know.   Perhaps other animals like whales or dolphins had entirely different understanding of THEIR "reality" because they had echolocation and other senses we do not have, and the way they experienced the world must have been entirely different than our world.  They knew things we could not know because they had senses we do not have.  Their senses must create an entirely different understanding of what is "out there" than we do.

Science only explores what we all can know together and share perceptions of.  But then there are also private experiences which are just as real to us personally as the scientific world is as a shared perception.  We can all agree on chairs and tables and the boiling point of water but being in love or knowing if I have a pain in my side, or how I feel about politics is all purely private.  We can agree that there is a brown leather chair in the room but we might not agree on the best course for the country or for whom we should vote,  yet in the final analysis those internal thoughts and ideas are much more important to us than the simple fact that there is a leather chair in the room.

So a spiritual experience, though private, may be the most important thing that has every happened to me.  The IMPORTANT things in life tend to be entirely personal and private and have nothing to do with what you think on the same subject.  I love MY wife, not yours.   I vote for MY candidate, not yours.  I believe in MY religion or none, not your views on the same subject.   Our individual realities are "where we live" while we navigate around the leather chairs and microwave settings to cook the tv dinner we are about to eat.

The stuff outside- turning the key to start the car to drive to work has much less importance to us than our retirement plan of what we will do with the money we make at that job.  The plans and dreams and beliefs are much more important than anything in the world.

Then I heard of Mormonism.  Mormons believe that God is a man with "human" values- yet infinitely above us.  Their MODEL of who God is is entirely different than the tradiional abstract god I had been raised with.  What is IMPORTANT to us is important to this God.  Family, love, being happy and fulfilled is what I worry about and what the Mormon God wants for me.   He is not floating around doing who knows what, detached and transcendent and "knowing all things"- whatever that is supposed to mean anyway- but is the Ideal Human, the apotheosis of everything humans find important.

This God is humanism- being the best you can be- raised to the level of Godhood.  He is a God who communicates with us- his children.  I could see him as a "model" for my life as I could see Jesus as a model for my life,   Does he "exist"?  Immaterial!  If I want to believe and see him as a model, THAT is all that matters to me- it is the effect he has in my life that is important

Mormons believe that you need to have your own spiritual experiences to verify that this path is the one God wants for you.   It must be a private experience, not some logical or external idea.  That made sense because everything important was internal anyway.

And these Mormons have this book also the Book of Mormon that tells some fables about some Indians or something.  But what does it say about what is important?  What is the doctrine?   

I read it and liked it.  I was interested in the philosophy not the history.   Did I worry about the life of the philosophers I read?   Of course not- what was important was what they taught and their ideas- not who they were, where they lived or even if the actually lived at all.  Who cares about that stuff??

And then I had a huge spiritual experience after I read Moroni 10: 4-5.

I had another huge spiritual experience when I was confirmed and received the Holy Ghost.

I was cooked.

 

[pogi]

On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 0:56 AM, mfbukowski said:

I am thinking of starting a thread titled "you are what you believe".  

I am looking forward to it.  "Belief", and its effects has been a subject of intrigue and study for me for some time.