How an Ahistorical Book of Mormon Can Still Be Scripture

[Rajah Manchou]

There was an article published in Mormon Interpreter last week comparing the setting of Lehi's Dream to the Garden of Eden.

Lehi’s Dream and the Garden of Eden

This seems to confirm that there is a case to be made for the Book of Mormon being an ancient document, and at least partly historical. Let me explain, and apologies for repeating this over and over. I'm obviously having trouble communicating these ideas.

Up until the 16th century, the Garden of Eden was said to be an island somewhere far in the east, across the great ocean.

"Lastly, beyond the Ocean lies Eden, that is, the Paradise made by the Lord of Sabaoth in the east and adorned by fruit of every description. It is protected by a huge wall of copper and guarded by a Cherub. No mortal man can see Eden. Thus the land of the Brahmans/Rahmans/Blessed ‘moves’ farther and farther east. After ‘traversing ‘Hindustan, it first ‘settles in an ocean island in the ‘unrecognized Nusantara’ and then becomes one of its archipelagoes....The movement of the land/island of Rahmans to the east-southeast was evidently due to two causes: the equation of the Rahmans with the Blessed and the location of the Blessed near Eden, which according to medieval notions deriving from the Bible (Genesis 2:8-3:24), lies in the extreme east of the inhabited world, or even beyond its confines, but still in the same, eastern, direction." (source)

Of course America hadn't yet been discovered, so the setting was unidentified but was said to be an island or islands beyond India. According to a handful of Judeo-Christian and Arabic texts this island was inhabited by a group of Amorites (or rather sons of Amur) who departed Mesopotamia in boats resembling Noah's Ark around the time of the tower. (source) This, of course, resembles the Book of Mormon account of the Jaredites.

In other accounts, the Island of the Blessed was also said to be inhabited by a group of Israelites that were carried from Jerusalem to the island by God around the 6th century BC. Alternative names for this group are the Rechabites, the Blessed and the Rahmans or gymnosophists. (source) Their accounts, of course, resemble the Book of Mormon account of the Lehites.

The name of this island was Qamara, and it was supposedly inhabited by two different Biblical clans from the time of the tower up until the 5th century AD when there was a conflict and the people of Qamara fled across the ocean, eventually reaching the Comoros Islands.

By all accounts, the Book of Mormon seems to be a fairly accurate retelling of ancient historical documents and geographies. Things that Joseph Smith Jr. would not have known. 

[hagoth7]

On ‎8‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 0:52 PM, Gray said:

I don't think diversity has anything to do with. It's the culturally conditioned language of first century Jewish Christians. It makes no sense outside of its time and place. 

Those who have studied the Dead Sea scrolls carefully have concluded that the so-called library does not reflect a homogenized set of Judaism, but rather a large buffet of differing viewpoints.

Those who approach faiths with such a reality will more fairly understand the complex peoples they claim to know.

Edited August 31, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

...Up until the 16th century, the Garden of Eden was said to be an island somewhere far in the east, across the great ocean... 

According to western Europe, the Garden of Eden was claimed to be somewhere further west, across the great ocean...

Triangulate the two testimonies...and....

Edited August 31, 2017 by hagoth7

[Tom N]

On 8/25/2017 at 8:32 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

Thanks Tom.   I've often wished your essay on NDEs had been published.  I hope it is online somewhere.  I've mentioned several times over the years when the topic has come up.  And I'd love to see you contributing to the Interpreter.  It was fun see Zina review Mother of the Lord .  Margaret was impressed, dubbing it a masterpiece.

 

Kevin,

Thanks for your observations. I have kind of crawled into a hole and dragged the entrance in after me. Over time, a crashed hard drive and many moves my NDE work has been sucked into the ether. It had a purpose that was fulfilled and if someone somewhere finds it and posts it to the net, well, whee. I am gratified that you and some others are doing a yeoman like job of addressing these boards with sense and reason. Since you do a better job than I could hope to it takes the onus off, and I feel that things will work out well in the end without me contributing my blather.

I didn't even know my own dear sister (actually the sibling to whom I am closest, believe it or not) had reviewed the esteemed Ms. Barker, but I have found said review and will peruse it after I once more take up some time and space on this board.

A word on history and historians, since there have been some opinions stated on the board. I once conversed with a woman who had been an editor for a major publication firm that printed text books. She said that the company printed three different versions of the American history texts, one for most of America, one for the Southern States (in which the South didn't actually win The War Between the States, but they most certainly didn't lose it) and one more version for Texas. History is written by the winners, and then rewritten by later winners. Or it's written for a particular audience or from a particular viewpoint. Historians try to be objective, but that is really impossible. Their (our) own personalities and prejudices  always enter in. Much of what I see in the blogosphere is just people saying "The 'experts' that agree  with me are total geniuses and the ones that support you are imbecilic scumbags, so I win." To which the reply is, "Nuh-uh, my guys are way smarter, so I win." This is why I swore off blogs and boards until I got dragged back in.

Ben,

I limit myself, for a number of reasons, to only looking at this board only on Thursdays, and I might have skipped even that but for the feeling that I had a wrong to right. This thread was started at least in part, because of a story I told you about my father and David O. McKay. When I told the story I was not aware that you had begun to think of the BOM as ahistorical. Had I been aware of that I would have told the story thusly:

Recognizing that what I have to say here is based on my personal memory and my own reconstructions of conversations to which I was not a party. I am the source for and accept responsibility for what I tell. I was party to the one conversation between my father and myself  in which he related the incident with Bro. McKay. You need not seek for corroboration for this conversation with anyone other that me and my father; no one else was there.

Dad spent a great deal of time and effort to become well versed in ancient history and languages, receiving a Ph.D from Cal Berkeley for his diligence. He felt that if you hadn't read a document in its original language then you really hadn't read it at all. His interests were wide ranging, but much of study focused on the ancient middle east and the scriptures. He was fascinated by the Book of Mormon. So much so that it was the number one thing on that occupied his thought, so he says, as he was driving a jeep onto Utah Beach on D-Day, in spite of being targeted by German artillery and having a number of other things going on that might have distracted a less concentrated mind.

After the war he was employed as an editor for the church magazines while continuing to look into the BOM. At that time in the church the BOM was not taken too seriously, and some scholars such as Sterling McMurrin were dismissing the BOM entirely. From his studies of the ancient world Dad realized that in the account of Lehi's journey from Jerusalem to Southern Arabia (yes, I know that the BOM doesn't say Southern Arabia, but that what it came to be called) there was a very testable historical narrative  that could show strong evidence that the BOM is in fact an historical document. He decided to do some writing to show what he had found, and brought up the subject in a conversation with Bro. McKay, who asked him why he would bother. Dad replied that the evidence would show that the BOM could be an historical document, to McKay said, as close as I can recall, "But Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon". This is not all that surprising a comment when it is realized that that was something of a fashionable view at the time.

Now comes the important part of the story. Mckay read what Dad wrote (there may have been other things involved, Dad would never take more credit than his due, and often  didn't even care about that.) and completely changed his mind! Made a 180 degree reversal. Became so strongly convinced that the Book of Mormon is actual history that, as President of the Church he commissioned Dad to write a priesthood manual for the Melchizedek priesthood for the express purpose of spending an entire year teaching weekly that the first 17 chapters Book of Mormon is a historical record that fits precisely in the setting of the ancient middle east, and the story of the Jaredites can be linked to ancient historical documents. That manual is called An Approach to the Book of Mormon and can be found here:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/an-approach-to-the-book-of-mormon/

The arguments and evidence  he presents are still valid and if you want to say the BOM is ahistorical you need to actually read that book and come up with better counter evidence than any I have seen on this board to disprove his thesis.

 

On 8/27/2017 at 4:19 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

Again, a historical reading of this passage isn't the only meaningful one nor does an ahistorical reading diminish the message.

That depends on your frame of reference and what you want the BOM to do for you. In my frame of reference an ahistorical view doesn't just diminish the BOM , it demolishes it, making it of no worth, if not perniciously dangerous, while offering false, misleading and outrageous promises.

 

On 8/27/2017 at 4:19 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

To sum it up, I sincerely believe we can build Zion and work towards celestial realities whether the BOM be historical or ahistorical. I believe we can recieve further visions, revelations, the sealed portion, etc. with either historical or ahistorical foundations. 

That could possibly be true if the Zion you're building is merely a society where people are nice all the time. But the Zion I look for is part and parcel with the Zion of Enoch. And if you think the claims of the BOM are too outrageous to be taken seriously then how do you handle this society?

13 And so great was the faith of Enoch that he led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch, and so great was the power of the language which God had given him.

16 And... the Lord came and dwelt with his people, and they dwelt in righteousness.

17 The fear of the Lord was upon all nations, so great was the glory of the Lord, which was upon his people. And the Lord blessed the land, and they were blessed upon the mountains, and upon the high places, and did flourish.

18 And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.

19 And Enoch continued his preaching in righteousness unto the people of God. And it came to pass in his days, that he built a city that was called the City of Holiness, even Zion.

21 And... lo, Zion, in process of time, was taken up into heaven. And the Lord said unto Enoch: Behold mine abode forever.

27 And Enoch beheld angels descending out of heaven, bearing testimony of the Father and Son; and the Holy Ghost fell on many, and they were caught up by the powers of heaven into Zion. (Moses 7, emphasis added)

32 And men having this faith, coming up unto this order of God, were translated and taken up into heaven.

33 And now, Melchizedek was a priest of this order; therefore he obtained peace in Salem, and was called the Prince of peace.

34 And his people wrought righteousness, and obtained heaven, and sought for the city of Enoch which God had before taken, separating it from the earth, having reserved it unto the latter days, or the end of the world; (JST Gen. 14)

These descriptions tally with what is prophesied in the BOM:

22 And behold, this people will I establish in this land, unto the fulfilling of the covenant which I made with your father Jacob; and it shall be a New Jerusalem. And the powers of heaven shall be in the midst of this people; yea, even I will be in the midst of you. (3Ne. 20, emphasis added)

23 And they [the gentiles, i. e. us] shall assist my people, the remnant of Jacob, and also as many of the house of Israel as shall come, that they may build a city, which shall be called the New Jerusalem.

24 And then shall they assist my people that they may be gathered in, who are scattered upon all the face of the land, in unto the New Jerusalem.

25 And then shall the power of heaven come down among them; and I also will be in the midst. (3Ne 21, commentary and emphasis added]

These are the descriptions of Zion I look to, and they are not to be established by the weak and watery assumption that an ahistorical view of the BOM can still get us there. If that sounds harsh, well deal with it. You always have the option of ignoring me or looking on me as a fanatical ranter. I'm well aware that I'm not in the mainstream. But I am gratified that there are some on the board seem to have similar thoughts and feelings.

I may check next Thursday to see if there is anything that I feel that I absolutely must address. Till then, God bless you all, we're all still His children.

[longview]

56 minutes ago, Tom N said:

Now comes the important part of the story. Mckay read what Dad wrote (there may have been other things involved, Dad would never take more credit than his due, and often  didn't even care about that.) and completely changed his mind! Made a 180 degree reversal. Became so strongly convinced that the Book of Mormon is actual history that, as President of the Church he commissioned Dad to write a priesthood manual - - -

Extremely unlikely story.  Casting doubt on the divinity of the BoM and its prophets and the testimonies of many of the figures.  As if Pres.McKay was a deist to begin with (that Joseph Smith created a work of fiction) - - -

de·ism

ˈdēˌizəm,ˈdāˌizəm/

noun

1. belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.

[Meerkat]

2 hours ago, Tom N said:

Kevin,

Thanks for your observations. I have kind of crawled into a hole and dragged the entrance in after me. Over time, a crashed hard drive and many moves my NDE work has been sucked into the ether. It had a purpose that was fulfilled and if someone somewhere finds it and posts it to the net, well, whee. I am gratified that you and some others are doing a yeoman like job of addressing these boards with sense and reason. Since you do a better job than I could hope to it takes the onus off, and I feel that things will work out well in the end without me contributing my blather.

I didn't even know my own dear sister (actually the sibling to whom I am closest, believe it or not) had reviewed the esteemed Ms. Barker, but I have found said review and will peruse it after I once more take up some time and space on this board.

A word on history and historians, since there have been some opinions stated on the board. I once conversed with a woman who had been an editor for a major publication firm that printed text books. She said that the company printed three different versions of the American history texts, one for most of America, one for the Southern States (in which the South didn't actually win The War Between the States, but they most certainly didn't lose it) and one more version for Texas. History is written by the winners, and then rewritten by later winners. Or it's written for a particular audience or from a particular viewpoint. Historians try to be objective, but that is really impossible. Their (our) own personalities and prejudices  always enter in. Much of what I see in the blogosphere is just people saying "The 'experts' that agree  with me are total geniuses and the ones that support you are imbecilic scumbags, so I win." To which the reply is, "Nuh-uh, my guys are way smarter, so I win." This is why I swore off blogs and boards until I got dragged back in.

Ben,

I limit myself, for a number of reasons, to only looking at this board only on Thursdays, and I might have skipped even that but for the feeling that I had a wrong to right. This thread was started at least in part, because of a story I told you about my father and David O. McKay. When I told the story I was not aware that you had begun to think of the BOM as ahistorical. Had I been aware of that I would have told the story thusly:

Recognizing that what I have to say here is based on my personal memory and my own reconstructions of conversations to which I was not a party. I am the source for and accept responsibility for what I tell. I was party to the one conversation between my father and myself  in which he related the incident with Bro. McKay. You need not seek for corroboration for this conversation with anyone other that me and my father; no one else was there.

Dad spent a great deal of time and effort to become well versed in ancient history and languages, receiving a Ph.D from Cal Berkeley for his diligence. He felt that if you hadn't read a document in its original language then you really hadn't read it at all. His interests were wide ranging, but much of study focused on the ancient middle east and the scriptures. He was fascinated by the Book of Mormon. So much so that it was the number one thing on that occupied his thought, so he says, as he was driving a jeep onto Utah Beach on D-Day, in spite of being targeted by German artillery and having a number of other things going on that might have distracted a less concentrated mind.

After the war he was employed as an editor for the church magazines while continuing to look into the BOM. At that time in the church the BOM was not taken too seriously, and some scholars such as Sterling McMurrin were dismissing the BOM entirely. From his studies of the ancient world Dad realized that in the account of Lehi's journey from Jerusalem to Southern Arabia (yes, I know that the BOM doesn't say Southern Arabia, but that what it came to be called) there was a very testable historical narrative  that could show strong evidence that the BOM is in fact an historical document. He decided to do some writing to show what he had found, and brought up the subject in a conversation with Bro. McKay, who asked him why he would bother. Dad replied that the evidence would show that the BOM could be an historical document, to McKay said, as close as I can recall, "But Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon". This is not all that surprising a comment when it is realized that that was something of a fashionable view at the time.

Now comes the important part of the story. Mckay read what Dad wrote (there may have been other things involved, Dad would never take more credit than his due, and often  didn't even care about that.) and completely changed his mind! Made a 180 degree reversal. Became so strongly convinced that the Book of Mormon is actual history that, as President of the Church he commissioned Dad to write a priesthood manual for the Melchizedek priesthood for the express purpose of spending an entire year teaching weekly that the first 17 chapters Book of Mormon is a historical record that fits precisely in the setting of the ancient middle east, and the story of the Jaredites can be linked to ancient historical documents. That manual is called An Approach to the Book of Mormon and can be found here:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/an-approach-to-the-book-of-mormon/

The arguments and evidence  he presents are still valid and if you want to say the BOM is ahistorical you need to actually read that book and come up with better counter evidence than any I have seen on this board to disprove his thesis.

 

That depends on your frame of reference and what you want the BOM to do for you. In my frame of reference an ahistorical view doesn't just diminish the BOM , it demolishes it, making it of no worth, if not perniciously dangerous, while offering false, misleading and outrageous promises.

 

That could possibly be true if the Zion you're building is merely a society where people are nice all the time. But the Zion I look for is part and parcel with the Zion of Enoch. And if you think the claims of the BOM are too outrageous to be taken seriously then how do you handle this society?

13 And so great was the faith of Enoch that he led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch, and so great was the power of the language which God had given him.

16 And... the Lord came and dwelt with his people, and they dwelt in righteousness.

17 The fear of the Lord was upon all nations, so great was the glory of the Lord, which was upon his people. And the Lord blessed the land, and they were blessed upon the mountains, and upon the high places, and did flourish.

18 And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.

19 And Enoch continued his preaching in righteousness unto the people of God. And it came to pass in his days, that he built a city that was called the City of Holiness, even Zion.

21 And... lo, Zion, in process of time, was taken up into heaven. And the Lord said unto Enoch: Behold mine abode forever.

27 And Enoch beheld angels descending out of heaven, bearing testimony of the Father and Son; and the Holy Ghost fell on many, and they were caught up by the powers of heaven into Zion. (Moses 7, emphasis added)

32 And men having this faith, coming up unto this order of God, were translated and taken up into heaven.

33 And now, Melchizedek was a priest of this order; therefore he obtained peace in Salem, and was called the Prince of peace.

34 And his people wrought righteousness, and obtained heaven, and sought for the city of Enoch which God had before taken, separating it from the earth, having reserved it unto the latter days, or the end of the world; (JST Gen. 14)

These descriptions tally with what is prophesied in the BOM:

22 And behold, this people will I establish in this land, unto the fulfilling of the covenant which I made with your father Jacob; and it shall be a New Jerusalem. And the powers of heaven shall be in the midst of this people; yea, even I will be in the midst of you. (3Ne. 20, emphasis added)

23 And they [the gentiles, i. e. us] shall assist my people, the remnant of Jacob, and also as many of the house of Israel as shall come, that they may build a city, which shall be called the New Jerusalem.

24 And then shall they assist my people that they may be gathered in, who are scattered upon all the face of the land, in unto the New Jerusalem.

25 And then shall the power of heaven come down among them; and I also will be in the midst. (3Ne 21, commentary and emphasis added]

These are the descriptions of Zion I look to, and they are not to be established by the weak and watery assumption that an ahistorical view of the BOM can still get us there. If that sounds harsh, well deal with it. You always have the option of ignoring me or looking on me as a fanatical ranter. I'm well aware that I'm not in the mainstream. But I am gratified that there are some on the board seem to have similar thoughts and feelings.

I may check next Thursday to see if there is anything that I feel that I absolutely must address. Till then, God bless you all, we're all still His children.

Thank you for affirming the foundation of many of our testimonies: Joseph Smith saw and spoke with God the Father and Jesus Christ; Moroni actually appeared to Joseph Smith and the three witnesses and showed them an historical record, an important part of which Moroni witnessed, his father witnessed, and each prior contributor to the record either witnessed or believed to the point of protecting and handing it down until it reached our day, a record that Joseph Smith translated.  I am surprised, however, that David O. McKay would have ever entertained the idea that the Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith, rather than translated.  That seems illogical to me considering Moroni's appearance to the witnesses with the plates, etc., etc.  

Your statement "That depends on your frame of reference and what you want the BOM to do for you. In my frame of reference an ahistorical view doesn't just diminish the BOM , it demolishes it, making it of no worth, if not perniciously dangerous, while offering false, misleading and outrageous promises."

applies to President David O. McKay, a latter day prophet, as well as the rest of us who might consider it an historical fiction.  Doesn't an ahistorical view completely undermine any testimony of Joseph Smith as the prophet, seer and revelator of the Restoration?  That is why I find the David O. McKay part of your narrative problematic.  Didn't you also when you heard it?

Edited August 31, 2017 by Meerkat

[cdowis]

38 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

Pesident David O. McKay, a latter day prophet, as well as the rest of us who might consider it an historical fiction. 

Tell us about that again.  Give us the EXACT quote where he clearly expresses that view, and the source.

Sounds like another antiMormon myth, but let's see what you got.

Edited August 31, 2017 by cdowis

[Calm]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

Tell us about that again.  Give us the EXACT quote where he clearly expresses that view, and the source.

Sounds like another antiMormon myth, but let's see what you got.

Why should he since he appears to reject it as likely?

"That is why I find the David O. McKay part of your narrative problematic"

[Meerkat]

7 hours ago, cdowis said:

Tell us about that again.  Give us the EXACT quote where he clearly expresses that view, and the source.

Sounds like another antiMormon myth, but let's see what you got.

Please see paragraphs 5 through 9 of the quoted material that was included with my post.  Thanks.  I think we are probably on the same page with this.

[Gray]

On 8/29/2017 at 5:34 PM, clarkgoble said:

If Joseph translated using KJV phrases then many of these achronisms are actually artifacts of the translation method. Further we can deconstruct such passages.

The translation in the Book of Mormon of the Sermon on the Mount clearly makes use of the NT text (with some changes). But also note that this is written by Mormon hundreds of years after the events. It may be problematic but it's not an anachronism.

According to the book the sermon was given early in the first century. That makes it anachronistic. But moving it to the 5th century doesn't really help, as there is no plausible way to get the Nephites access to the NT.

 

On 8/29/2017 at 5:34 PM, clarkgoble said:

Mosiah 3:7 is a bit more complex. It's not a quotation there, but an allusion. Luke says he sweated like drops of blood, not that he was bleeding. (And the verse is missing in many manuscripts) Benjamin says "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." So it may not be an allusion at all as there are differences. The blood echoes sacrifice imagery quite a bit, unlike Luke which is more a metaphor of bleeding → sweat. Interestingly Luke 22:44 is seen by some non-Mormon scholars as a midrash on Jacob's wrestling. However what's more interesting is just how different Mosiah 3 is from the KJV of Luke 22. There we don't have a metaphor but actual bleeding. Many suggest that Benjamin's comments has much more in common with Numbers 19 than Luke 22. 

I do think it's a clear allusion to Luke. The change from simile to literal sweating of blood to me sounds like an imperfectly remembered allusion to Luke. What do you see in common with Numbers 19?

 

On 8/29/2017 at 5:34 PM, clarkgoble said:

Given the fairly significant differences from Luke 22 I'm not sure we can say it's an anachronism. What's so interesting is that unlike so many other passages that quote the NT, this one doesn't.

I think it is clearly an allusion to a textual variant (with not historical sources) that hadn't yet been composed, which is still problematic.

 

On 8/29/2017 at 5:34 PM, clarkgoble said:

Atonement theology in the Book of Mormon is quite a bit different from NT theology though. It also evolves in the text. Further it appears much more wrapped up in the deuteronomistic controversy around the the time of the exile. So I think that's much more complex than it appears. To me I don't see the Book of Mormon actually adopting the main theories of atonement by the Apostolic Fathers, although I'm willing to discuss it in more detail if you disagree.

BOM atonement theology pretty well developed, seemingly much more so than it was in the NT, indicating to me that it's much later than the NT.  What do you think?

 

On 8/29/2017 at 5:34 PM, clarkgoble said:

The terms savior and son of God were Jewish terms not explicitly tied to Rome. Savior comes out of Isaiah and its initial use follows Isaiah typology in terms of how the theology of savior is developed. The later developments come centuries later. While it's easy to read the NT use into the Book of Mormon what's much more interesting is how they differ - especially in key texts such as say Abinadi's speeches. Son of God also has a use well before Roman conquest of Palestine such as in Ps 82 among other passages such as Gen 6, Job 1,2,38, Deut 32:8. For those arguing about the form of Judaism prior to the Josiah reforms and Deuteronomist transformation of Judaism it's worth noting that most assuming Jewish religion was more similar to Canaanite practice especially in terms of the pantheon. Many elements of that can be found in Nephi's writings including his vision. Others have also noted similarities to Merkabah literature of many passages such as Mosiah 15. Merkabah literature is later and post-exilic, but it's quite conceivable that elements were pre-exilic. There's also the mysterious Melchezedek texts at Qumran. We don't know how old those traditions are although similar traditions pop up in the Book of Mormon in Alma 14. This also ignores Egyptian influence as well as how the common treatment of Israel as the Son of God and Firstborn.  So I think this is much more complicated at best.

"Sons of God" is a phrased used frequently in the OT, although not at all in that context, at least from the passages you cite. These are not Messianic passages - Gen 6 is the story of the Nephelim, others refer to heavenly messengers. I don't think Isaiah uses it at all, correct me if I'm wrong.

The BOM is constantly using "song of God," "Savior of the World" and "Redeemer" to refer to Jesus. All of these are Roman titles for Caesar, used very deliberately by the early Christians.

 

On 8/29/2017 at 5:34 PM, clarkgoble said:

The God/Satan dualism is part and parcel of broader dualism. As you note the reification of Satan is post-exilic. However again that problem of Josiah and the Deuteronomists raises its head. First you already have the opposition between YHWH and Baal or Moloch. (With YHWH being seen as one God among many rather than the ontological monotheism of later Judaism)  So the dualism isn't necessarily as alien as you suggest. Likewise there are myths amongst the Canaanites where there's a more robust pantheon with Satan-like characters. Egypt, which we know was a big influence on the Nephites, had Set fulfilling a Satan like role at this time.

I don't see any real indication of the old patheist system in the Book of Mormon. It seems to insist quite strenuously on its own ideas about monotheism. In any case, the God/Satan dualism in the BOM is very specifically isn't Yahweh/Baal, or Ra/Set, or what have you. The Christian "Satan" character is fully formed in the BOM.

 

On 8/29/2017 at 5:34 PM, clarkgoble said:

The Christology is also complicated. Pre-existence of course predates John. It's a common belief among many groups. Of course the main source of influence on John is the Phaedrus which post-dates Nephi. So I'll grant you this one although I think the nature in the Book of Mormon is complicated in that Jesus as a pre-mortal individual isn't that common. The main famous place is Ether 3. That is so different from John though that I have a hard time seeing that as an achronism.

Oh yes, Paul believed in a prexistestant Jesus, but not Jesus as a preexistent God.

[Gray]

On 8/29/2017 at 5:36 PM, deli_llama said:

You see, this is where your modern western conditioned mind will always struggle. It is something outside of our day to day experiences.  You can't even perceive, experience and think in the manner they do. There is also an unfortunate bias written into our modern cultures that expresses itself as sense of superiority to what we call primitive.

This also isn't a new discussion or disagreement.  Plato, speaking of the introduction and influence of writing, says in Phaedrus: "If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks." Here, using the voice of Socrates in relating a legend to Phaedrus, he tells of the god Thoth offering the Egyptian king Thamus his divine gift of writing. The king continues with his response to this gift: "And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows."

I am sure that we could exchange papers and research until the moon falls from the sky. Just like this. 

http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:14264

Would prefer not to however because I suspect it isn't going to move either of us from our places. I included the link though so you can see that there are other examples of sound research being done within oral cultures and traditions that draw different conclusions from what you offered. 

There are other reasons an oral history might be suspect or inaccurate. I will let you in on a little secret that isn't really acknowledged warmly in the field. Some of the discrepancies found in the different recordings of oral histories (or any cultural subject really) complied by ethnographers and anthropologists can also be deliberate. Many (most?) indigenous peoples aren't very honest and forthright when western scientists come calling. It is all about respect and the guest-host relationship. One or two seasons in the field isn't enough to build the relationships of trust required to make and accurate study of the people, nor do they really try to learn the language. Without that as a solid foundation, and a good long term relationship, all data is suspect. It is a big middle-finger to us and our arragance. And that is straight from the mouth of those that have had to deal western anthropologists. I said it more politely though.

If you are interested, David Abram's The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human World offers a source for a pretty solid glimpse into the mind and understandings of indigenous and animistic peoples. It also has some interesting reflections on the changes caused by literacy, including our memories and abilities to communicate with the environment and those other beings around us. 

From the description, it doesn't really contradict the argument I'm making. Note that I didn't say that oral tradition can preserve no factual details about that past, only that it changes with each retelling.

[Gray]

On 8/29/2017 at 8:19 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

Interesting, Hadn't heard some of these before. Will take a closer look.

But at first glance, these don't jump out as anachronisms to me. The Book of Mormon was sealed around 420 AD, and anything abridged by Mormon's hand would have been written after many of these. 

 

 

Are you saying Mormon invented, for example, the story about Jesus delivering the Sermon on the Mount? Where did he get his copy of Matthew?

 

 

 

Quote

The closing books of the Book of Mormon hint at an increase of trade and an influx of new religions and ideas. It seems possible to me that some of these early Christian themes and ideas could have been introduced in the 1st to 5th centuries AD. We do find Greek/Roman names such as Timothy and Lachoneus in the Book of Mormon, so it does seem likely that there was interaction between the Mediterranean and Bountiful, and we do know from historical sources that Greek and Roman traders and missionaries from the Eastern Church were venturing far into the east during the early Christian era. In particular, the Narrative of Zosimus and the History of the Rechabites hints at Old World Christians briefly interacting with Biblical clans that had been removed from the Old World around the same time as the Jaredite and Nephite civilizations. These accounts may have been based on historical events.

Of course we must come up with an explanation for how Old World ideas would have been known to Mormon, but it is important to clarify that these anachronisms are not anachronisms in a book that is dated to the early 5th century of the Christian era.

Do you have any evidence that Mormon invented the events of 3 Nephi, rather than summarizing them? I don't think we're on solid ground when we start coming up with ad hoc solutions based entirely on the need to solve the problem of an anachronism.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

On 8/30/2017 at 10:56 PM, hagoth7 said:

Those who have studied the Dead Sea scrolls carefully have concluded that the so-called library does not reflect a homogenized set of Judaism, but rather a large buffet of differing viewpoints.

Those who approach faiths with such a reality will more fairly understand the complex peoples they claim to know.

The historical context of Jesus as "Divine, Son of God, God, and God from God; Lord, Redeemer, Liberator, and Savior of the World":

https://www.onfaith.co/onfaith/2006/12/20/metaphor-is-not-rorschach/1987

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Are you saying Mormon invented, for example, the story about Jesus delivering the Sermon on the Mount? Where did he get his copy of Matthew?

There would be no need for someone living in the 5th century AD to invent the story about Jesus delivering the Sermon on the Mount. When was the Gospel of Matthew written? When did Mormon live?

 

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Do you have any evidence that Mormon invented the events of 3 Nephi, rather than summarizing them? I don't think we're on solid ground when we start coming up with ad hoc solutions based entirely on the need to solve the problem of an anachronism.

I am not suggesting he invented them. I believe it possible that 3rd Nephi is a summary of historical events that took place in the 5th century. How is that an ad hoc solution? The text of 3rd Nephi doesn't contain anachronisms that I know of. What in 3rd Nephi is anachronistic to the early 5th century AD?

 

[Meerkat]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Are you saying Mormon invented, for example, the story about Jesus delivering the Sermon on the Mount? Where did he get his copy of Matthew?

There is more to the Book of Mormon than those Bible verses, a lot more. It took Joseph Smith about 65 working days to translate the 531 pages of today's Book of Mormon.  I believe when he ran across parts where he saw the same doctrine that was taught in the Old World, he transcribed it from the Bible.   It makes sense to me that God would want the same doctrine taught to all His children.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Meerkat

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

There would be no need for someone living in the 5th century AD to invent the story about Jesus delivering the Sermon on the Mount. When was the Gospel of Matthew written? When did Mormon live?

 

I am not suggesting he invented them. I believe it possible that 3rd Nephi is a summary of historical events that took place in the 5th century. How is that an ad hoc solution? The text of 3rd Nephi doesn't contain anachronisms that I know of. What in 3rd Nephi is anachronistic to the early 5th century AD?

 

The events in 3 Nephi are purported to come from the first century CE.

If those events were invented by Mormon (meaning Jesus didn't give this sermon shortly after his resurrection), where did Mormon get his copy of Matthew?

[Gray]

Just now, Meerkat said:

There is more to the Book of Mormon than those Bible verses, a lot more. It took Joseph Smith about 65 working days to translate the 531 pages of today's Book of Mormon.  I believe when he ran across parts where he saw the same doctrine that was taught in the Old World, he transcribed it from the Bible.   It makes sense to me that God would teach the same doctrine to all His children.

The problem is the sermon in this form was composed by Matthew something like 50 years after Jesus' death.

Of course we know that the same doctrine is not taught to all God's children. The theology of the first decades of Christianity is quite different from what we are taught today, for instance.

[Rajah Manchou]

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

The events in 3 Nephi are purported to come from the first century CE.

So those events are not actually anachronistic. They happened in the first century and were written down in the 5th century and translated in the 19th century.

I think you are confusing anachronisms with discontinuity. If we see a giraffe walking down Center Street in Provo, we don't first assume that the giraffe is ahistorical or anachronistic. Instead we try to figure out how a giraffe got to Provo.

If you don't mistakingly assume a geography for the Book of Mormon, something that text itself does not do, is there anything anachronistic in it?

Edited September 1, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[Meerkat]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

The problem is the sermon in this form was composed by Matthew something like 50 years after Jesus' death.

Of course we know that the same doctrine is not taught to all God's children. The theology of the first decades of Christianity is quite different from what we are taught today, for instance.

What difference does it make when Matthew wrote down what he heard? It was part of the Bible when Joseph was translating the BOM.  

Let me correct my last sentence in my post: " It makes sense to me that God would want the same doctrine taught to all His children."

[Gray]

50 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

So those events are not actually anachronistic. They happened in the first century and were written down in the 5th century and translated in the 19th century.

 

They are anachronistic if they occurred in year of Jesus' death, as the book purports that they did.

Note that the Book of Mormon was written down in English the 19th century. Does that make it, in your opinion, a 19th century book?

 

Quote

I think you are confusing anachronisms with discontinuity. If we see a giraffe walking down Center Street in Provo, we don't first assume that the giraffe is ahistorical or anachronistic. Instead we try to figure out how a giraffe got to Provo.

If you don't mistakingly assume a geography for the Book of Mormon, something that text itself does not do, is there anything anachronistic in it?

The book dates the sermon to shortly after Jesus died, which is an anachronism. If the sermon was actually not delivered at that time, but anytime after ~85 CE, anachronism ceases to be the issue, but there are other issues that are just as problematic.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Gray

[cdowis]

18 hours ago, Meerkat said:

Recognizing that what I have to say here is based on my personal memory and my own reconstructions of conversations to which I was not a party. I am the source for and accept responsibility for what I tell. I was party to the one conversation between my father and myself  in which he related the incident with Bro. McKay.

Oh, you mean where he wrote you a letter of what he thinks he remembers and a reconstruction of what his father had told him about HIS memory and reconstruction of what McKay said to him, and later concluding that McKay had  "changed his mind" perhaps based on Nibley's book.

Is that your source?

Edited September 1, 2017 by cdowis

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

According to the book the sermon was given early in the first century. That makes it anachronistic. But moving it to the 5th century doesn't really help, as there is no plausible way to get the Nephites access to the NT.

You're talking about a text that presupposes a Palestinian appearing in the air in America after dying. I'm not sure you can say there's no plausible way it got there given the commitments of the book. If you are taking as a premise that Jesus being anything but a regular mortal then yeah, I agree. But there's a certain circularity there I think you'd agree.

Quote

I do think it's a clear allusion to Luke. The change from simile to literal sweating of blood to me sounds like an imperfectly remembered allusion to Luke. What do you see in common with Numbers 19?

But you're then explaining away the clear differences. Which is fine, but let's at least be clear what's going on. 

Numbers 19 talks about the sprinkling of blood from the red heifer without defect. This is regularly remarked upon given the rarity of such cows. Interestingly this is one of the big issues with rebuilding the temple and reconstituting Jewish temple practice. It's disputable of course - and the pre-exilic tradition may well have been somewhat different.

Quote

BOM atonement theology pretty well developed, seemingly much more so than it was in the NT, indicating to me that it's much later than the NT.  What do you think?

Again though it's much more wrapped up in the atonement theology of the OT. Further I'd argue you can trace it's development within the Book of Mormon.

Quote

"Sons of God" is a phrased used frequently in the OT, although not at all in that context, at least from the passages you cite. These are not Messianic passages - Gen 6 is the story of the Nephelim, others refer to heavenly messengers. I don't think Isaiah uses it at all, correct me if I'm wrong.

Right, but of course the theology of Jesus is different in the Book of Mormon as well. Mosiah 15 is pretty key there with how Abinadi interprets saviors on Mt. Zion. Further unlike the NT where "Son" only applies to Jesus in the Book of Mormon it's an order. (See Alma 13) Again while Merkabah texts we have post-date the exile, the similarities are fairly close with such texts. The closest we have in the NT is Hebrews but in the Book of Mormon it's not just Jesus who becomes a priest after Melchezedek but all priests in some unspecified ritual immitating the heavenly priest. So in the Book of Mormon the Son of God is much more tied to priesthood. As I said there are elements of that in the NT, but it isn't the main emphasis. Further in some unspecified way the ordination of the priest demonstrates how people look to Jesus as priest.

The closest in the NT era isn't in the NT but at Qumran. There Sons of God are both the divine council but also tied to an order of Melchezedek. Like Alma 13 we have "men of the lot of Mel[chi]zedek will be atoned for" Extremely interestingly we have the same passage of Isaiah quoted about saviors on Mt. Zion that Abinadi quotes in Mosiah 15. It's hard not to see that as significant in terms of a pre-Christian tradition of a Messiah very much like the Nephite theology.

Quote

The BOM is constantly using "song of God," "Savior of the World" and "Redeemer" to refer to Jesus. All of these are Roman titles for Caesar, used very deliberately by the early Christians.

Redeemer is a common OT term. One can complain about the most similar to the Book of Mormon, Isaiah 54:5-8, as being post-exilic, but it's hard to say it's Roman. But the term is in the pre-exilic Isaiah as well as a significant term. More significantly Jeremiah uses it.

Quote

I don't see any real indication of the old patheist system in the Book of Mormon. It seems to insist quite strenuously on its own ideas about monotheism. In any case, the God/Satan dualism in the BOM is very specifically isn't Yahweh/Baal, or Ra/Set, or what have you. The Christian "Satan" character is fully formed in the BOM.

The symbolism of the tree of life that turns into a divine female is pretty prominent in 1 Nephi 11:8-9, 18-23. Note that the Canaanite symbolism of Ashtoreth was a tree often in the temple. In this case you have the birth of Christ who is divine, whose mother is symbolized by this tree and who has a divine father. 

Further we have a fourth figure who is a fallen divine figure. While more KJV language is used to name him (Satan/Lucifer) the role is pretty similar. Admittedly the main influence is Isaiah 14. However Isaiah 14 is regularly interpreted as arising from Canaanite pantheon. To the point many assume Isaiah was quoting the myth of Baal and Anat. The Athtar figure parallels Isaiah's Lucifer nearly exactly. Quoting from that:

Quote

'Then Athtar the Awesome climbed Mount Zaphon,
Ascended the throne of Ba'al the Almighty.
But his feet did not reach the footstool,
His head did not touch the headrest.
Then, Athar the Awesome spoke,
. . . . .
'I cannot serve as king,
I cannot dwell on the heights of Zaphon!'
So, Athtar the Awesome descended,
Stepped down from the throne of Ba'al the Almighty.
He became king of the Underworld,
Lord of the River of the Dead.'
(Victor Matthews, Don Benjamin, Old Testament Parallels 166).

More interesting Athtar was the son of Shachar whose name literally means morning. So Lucifer as Son of the Morning is Canaanite. There are quite a few other parallels and most Isaiah commentaries should go through them.

In the Book of Mormon Satan is tied with what in later Rabbinical Judaism is called "the evil inclination" (yetzer hara). This gets complicated. In later Hellenized Judaism this tends to get tied to the animal soul - although that's interesting relative to Benjamin's "natural man." So by the 1st century BCE we have two traditions of the evil inclination. One is personified in Satan and one is this natural inclination. While the Hellenized tradition tends to demythologize the personification aspects, that was a pre-Christian tradition as we see in the Qumran treatment tying it to fallen angels. Admittedly Qumran writings are well after the exile, it shows that the personification isn't just Christian. As I mentioned in Canaanite tradition you get a similar personification in Mot. (Athtar

So what we have in the Book of Mormon is an amalgamation of Mot, Anath and Athtar as Satan/Lucifer as the personification of the evil inclination. (Anath and Athtar are already treated similarly in the broad Ugaritic tradition with the main difference being the sex of the figure)

It's worth noting of course than in Canaanite religion Baal is a dying and resurrection deity pretty otherwise similar to YHWH. Who kills Baal? Mot. 

Lehi and Nephi would have been very familiar with these traditions. So rather than an anachronism this is much more their being closer to the earlier pre-Josiah Jewish religion.

Quote

Oh yes, Paul believed in a prexistestant Jesus, but not Jesus as a preexistent God.

But again how Jesus is the pre-existent God is much more complicated than the NT. Again Mosiah 15 is the obvious text. I know some like to read it as espousing a 19th century conception of modalism but it also fits quite well a more Merkabah conception - especially the divinization of Enoch into Metatron or the Lesser YHWH. Again as I noted, I recognize Merkabah texts are post-exilic and often well into the Hellenized period. However most scholars consider that element of Merkabah tradition to come from the wider Mesopotamian tradition and likely entered Judaism during the exile. That's still a problem for Nephites of course although Margaret Barker (a well known non-Mormon scholar) ties these to pre-exilic traditions and the traditions Josiah's reforms was stamping out. The main difficulty there is Barker notes a distinction between sons of El and sons of YHWH with the latter being human. However there's the notion of the divine angel which bridges this. Barker sees the Gospel writers as adapting this pre-exilic tradition that had persisted in the Merkabah tradition and the Qumran Melchezedek tradition. As I mentioned there's something similar in the Book of Mormon.

The divine angel pops up in the OT in places like Judg 13:3 or Gen 16:7. (Sorry - haven't had time to look up the dating of those verses) The most important is Ex 23:20-22 though. "“See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. 21 Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him." Again Alma 13 seems to be making use of this tradition - indeed verses 5-6 might be an allusion to Ex 23:20-22.

Some scholars, like Peter Hyman, argue that there's a dualism in Jewish monotheism between a supreme creator god and his prime minister who runs the show and that this is an outgrowth of older Canaanite pantheon traditions. That's a really excellent paper (published in a pretty prestigious journal) that has some remarkable similarities to the Book of Mormon.

 

 

Edited September 1, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Gray]

48 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

What difference does it make when Matthew wrote down what he heard?

Matthew (or the anonymous author of Matthew) was not an eyewitness to the life of Jesus. The sermon was not delivered like that by Jesus - it's a collection of traditional sayings of Jesus, put into the form of a sermon some 50 years after Jesus' death. The Sermon on the Mount, conceptually, is also a literary allusion to Moses.

 

48 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

 

It was part of the Bible when Joseph was translating the BOM.  

Let me correct my last sentence in my post: " It makes sense to me that God would want the same doctrine taught to all His children."

It might make sense that God would want the same doctrine taught to all his children, but in practice it doesn't happen. Even in the short history of this church, the doctrines constantly evolve.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

According to the book the sermon was given early in the first century. That makes it anachronistic. But moving it to the 5th century doesn't really help, as there is no plausible way to get the Nephites access to the NT.

You're talking about a text that presupposes a Palestinian appearing in the air after dying. I'm not sure you can say there's no plausible way it got there given the commitments of the book. If you are taking as a premise that Jesus being anything but a regular mortal then yeah, I agree. But there's a certain circularity there I think you'd agree.

Quote

I do think it's a clear allusion to Luke. The change from simile to literal sweating of blood to me sounds like an imperfectly remembered allusion to Luke. What do you see in common with Numbers 19?

But you're then explaining away the clear differences. Which is fine, but let's at least be clear what's going on. 

Numbers 19 talks about the sprinkling of blood from the red heifer without defect. This is regularly remarked upon given the rarity of such cows. Interestingly this is one of the big issues with rebuilding the temple and reconstituting Jewish temple practice. It's disputable of course - and the pre-exilic tradition may well have been somewhat different. Interestingly the sprinking of the blood of the heifer was the sin offering for touching death. Some have pushed the location of Gethsemene and the sacrifice but I tend to see that as reading too much into it. 

Quote

BOM atonement theology pretty well developed, seemingly much more so than it was in the NT, indicating to me that it's much later than the NT.  What do you think?

Again though it's much more wrapped up in the atonement theology of the OT. Further I'd argue you can trace it's development within the Book of Mormon.

Quote

"Sons of God" is a phrased used frequently in the OT, although not at all in that context, at least from the passages you cite. These are not Messianic passages - Gen 6 is the story of the Nephelim, others refer to heavenly messengers. I don't think Isaiah uses it at all, correct me if I'm wrong.

Right, but of course the theology of Jesus is different in the Book of Mormon as well. Mosiah 15 is pretty key there with how Abinadi interprets saviors on Mt. Zion. Further unlike the NT where "Son" only applies to Jesus in the Book of Mormon it's an order. (See Alma 13) Again while Merkabah texts we have post-date the exile, the similarities are fairly close with such texts. The closest we have in the NT is Hebrews but in the Book of Mormon it's not just Jesus who becomes a priest after Melchezedek but all priests in some unspecified ritual immitating the heavenly priest. So in the Book of Mormon the Son of God is much more tied to priesthood. As I said there are elements of that in the NT, but it isn't the main emphasis. Further in some unspecified way the ordination of the priest demonstrates how people look to Jesus as priest.

The closest in the NT era isn't in the NT but at Qumran. There Sons of God are both the divine council but also tied to an order of Melchezedek. Like Alma 13 we have "men of the lot of Mel[chi]zedek will be atoned for" Extremely interestingly we have the same passage of Isaiah quoted about saviors on Mt. Zion that Abinadi quotes in Mosiah 15. It's hard not to see that as significant in terms of a pre-Christian tradition of a Messiah very much like the Nephite theology.

Quote

The BOM is constantly using "song of God," "Savior of the World" and "Redeemer" to refer to Jesus. All of these are Roman titles for Caesar, used very deliberately by the early Christians.

Redeemer is a common OT term. One can complain about the most similar to the Book of Mormon, Isaiah 54:5-8, as being post-exilic, but it's hard to say it's Roman. But the term is in the pre-exilic Isaiah as well as a significant term. More significantly Jeremiah uses it. Likewise "savior" is a perfectly good term from Isaiah and Psalms.

Quote

I don't see any real indication of the old patheist system in the Book of Mormon. It seems to insist quite strenuously on its own ideas about monotheism. In any case, the God/Satan dualism in the BOM is very specifically isn't Yahweh/Baal, or Ra/Set, or what have you. The Christian "Satan" character is fully formed in the BOM.

The symbolism of the tree of life that turns into a divine female is pretty prominent in 1 Nephi 11:8-9, 18-23. Note that the Canaanite symbolism of Ashtoreth was a tree often in the temple. In this case you have the birth of Christ who is divine, whose mother is symbolized by this tree and who has a divine father. 

Further we have a fourth figure who is a fallen divine figure. While more KJV language is used to name him (Satan/Lucifer) the role is pretty similar. Admittedly the main influence is Isaiah 14. However Isaiah 14 is regularly interpreted as arising from Canaanite pantheon. To the point many assume Isaiah was quoting the myth of Baal and Anat. The Athtar figure parallels Isaiah's Lucifer nearly exactly. Quoting from that:

Quote

'Then Athtar the Awesome climbed Mount Zaphon,
Ascended the throne of Ba'al the Almighty.
But his feet did not reach the footstool,
His head did not touch the headrest.
Then, Athar the Awesome spoke,
. . . . .
'I cannot serve as king,
I cannot dwell on the heights of Zaphon!'
So, Athtar the Awesome descended,
Stepped down from the throne of Ba'al the Almighty.
He became king of the Underworld,
Lord of the River of the Dead.'
(Victor Matthews, Don Benjamin, Old Testament Parallels 166).

More interesting Athtar was the son of Shachar whose name literally means morning. So Lucifer as Son of the Morning is Canaanite. There are quite a few other parallels and most Isaiah commentaries should go through them.

In the Book of Mormon Satan is tied with what in later Rabbinical Judaism is called "the evil inclination" (yetzer hara). This gets complicated. In later Hellenized Judaism this tends to get tied to the animal soul - although that's interesting relative to Benjamin's "natural man." So by the 1st century BCE we have two traditions of the evil inclination. One is personified in Satan and one is this natural inclination. While the Hellenized tradition tends to demythologize the personification aspects, that was a pre-Christian tradition as we see in the Qumran treatment tying it to fallen angels. Admittedly Qumran writings are well after the exile, it shows that the personification isn't just Christian. As I mentioned in Canaanite tradition you get a similar personification in Mot. (Athtar

So what we have in the Book of Mormon is an amalgamation of Mot, Anath and Athtar as Satan/Lucifer as the personification of the evil inclination. (Anath and Athtar are already treated similarly in the broad Ugaritic tradition with the main difference being the sex of the figure)

It's worth noting of course that in Canaanite religion Baal is a dying and resurrection deity pretty otherwise similar to YHWH. Who kills Baal? Mot. 

Lehi and Nephi would have been very familiar with these traditions. So rather than an anachronism this is much more their being closer to the earlier pre-Josiah Jewish religion. Really looking for Roman parallels when there are already much closer explicit Canaanite ones seems pointless. One can debate of course how orthodox such things were. But we already know Lehi is doing unorthodox things such as sacrifices on mountains after the centralization of the cult to the Jerusalem temple.

The more interesting question would be how likely it was for Joseph Smith to know these things.

Edited September 1, 2017 by clarkgoble

[cdowis]

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

Matthew (or the anonymous author of Matthew) was not an eyewitness to the life of Jesus.

Can I assume that you also deny that Nephi had a vision of aspects of Christ's life as well?

The sermon was not delivered like that by Jesus - it's a collection of traditional sayings of Jesus, put into the form of a sermon some 50 years after Jesus' death. 

And who told you that?    Or is this just the blatherings of a modern day Pharasee.

It might make sense that God would want the same doctrine taught to all his children, but in practice it doesn't happen. Even in the short history of this church, the doctrines constantly evolve.

What specific doctrines are you talking about?  I know that specific practices or applications of doctrine have changed, but I personally know of no change in a doctrine itself.  Polygamy is an example where its practice changed, but you can find it practiced in the temple.

 

 

Edited September 1, 2017 by cdowis