Don Bradley's Book on the 116 Pages

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I know, this is a derail (you started it, though  ), but are you saying you think the church's teachings about the events at Adam-Ondi-Ahman and the gathering to the New Jerusalem have been jettisoned?

No, just that I am not exactly worried about that in my life.

Pragmatically, it ties up that loose end but I don't think it matters to anyone- unless we are called to actually do it, of course!

Philosophically it's kind of a deus ex machina that ties it all up as I see it.  Rationally it's unknowable so it doesn't matter as part of the "theory".  Yes we can have a testimony of it happening in the future but it does not really affect the theology as I see it.  My personal relationship with God is not affected by Adam-ondi-Ahman and how that fits into the philosophical paradigm of how I live my life.

But take it to another thread- but I will probably have nothing more to say about it.

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, USU78 said:

For the secular purposes of getting that dang MA out of the way, distinctions between Judahite and Josephite, so important to Mormons and the BoM, are distinctions without a difference, I expect.  One thing I remember from my masters:  it was about getting it done to the satisfaction of the committee, not solving every question that needs solving.

And, who knows?  Maybe Don takes the position that as citizen of Judah, Lehi's a Jew for all intents and purposes.  I mean, the man didn't know he was a Josephite until he got his Book of Remembrance.

It's always about showing you know how to do original research and then put it into an original way of seeing a problem, adding to the scholarship

He did both in spades and most important, it's DONE!

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

For the secular purposes of getting that dang MA out of the way, distinctions between Judahite and Josephite, so important to Mormons and the BoM, are distinctions without a difference, I expect.  One thing I remember from my masters:  it was about getting it done to the satisfaction of the committee, not solving every question that needs solving.

And, who knows?  Maybe Don takes the position that as citizen of Judah, Lehi's a Jew for all intents and purposes.  I mean, the man didn't know he was a Josephite until he got his Book of Remembrance.

He learned that he and Laban were Josephites early on (1 Ne 5:14,16, 6:2), but why did the Brass Plates contain that specifically Northern genealogy?  There is a lot we are not being told.  Joseph, or example, includes both Manasseh and Ephraim.   That he was a Manassite doesn't get stated until much later (Alma 10:3).  Why?

The Brass Plates can only have been a very rare and expensive book (perhaps saved from the Northern Kingdom royal court in 721 by Lehi's and Laban's scribal ancestors).  The BofLehi would presumably contain more detail.

[USU78]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

He learned that he and Laban were Josephites early on (1 Ne 5:14,16, 6:2), but why did the Brass Plates contain that specifically Northern genealogy?  There is a lot we are not being told.  Joseph, or example, includes both Manasseh and Ephraim.   That he was a Manassite doesn't get stated until much later (Alma 10:3).  Why?

The Brass Plates can only have been a very rare and expensive book (perhaps saved from the Northern Kingdom royal court in 721 by Lehi's and Laban's scribal ancestors).  The BofLehi would presumably contain more detail.

Yup. I've seen a work of fiction positing the sword, breastplate, interpreters, and plates as the holy relics of the northern kingdom, smuggled south as the Assyrians reduced Israel.

As I recall, the sword was supposed to be Joshua's sword.

Edited July 27, 2018 by USU78

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

Yup. I've seen a work of fiction positing the sword, breastplate, interpreters, and plates as the holy relics of the northern kingdom, smuggled south as the Assyrians reduced Israel.

As I recall, the sword was supposed to be Joshua's sword.

Yes.  I can recall Stephen Ricks back in the 1980s musing that the Sword of Laban was like mythical Excalibur.  Arthurian myth includes the Sangreal (Holy Grail), which has revelations appearing written upon it -- just the way it is described for the Liahona.  Add to that the Breastplate and the attached Interpreters, and the Golden and Brass Plates, and you have a whole reliquary which goes back thousands of years in prophetic legend, i.e., is characteristic of the prophetic call in the Divine Council.

In an Old Babylonian context, Geo Widengren demonstrated that the numinous heavenly tablets (dupšīmatī) go together with the lot-casting equipment (nadū parsē).  In ancient Mesopotamian religion, these heavenly tablets were central to the annual royal enthronment ritual, the king receiving the book at his ascension into the assembly of the gods (puhru ilani), and also receiving the cedar staff (symbol of the Tree of Life) and oracles.  These tablets are the tablets of destiny, wisdom, of the mystery of heaven & earth, etc.  In the Babylonian Enuma elish IV, 121-122, for example, the assembly of the gods under Marduk meets at the New Year Festival in the Chamber of Destiny and "decides the fate of the coming year," having conquered Kingu (the husband of Tiamat) and taking the tablets from him (cf. Laban) and affixing them to Marduk's breast.  The numinous tablets are carried thus in a pouch or bag (takāltu), in which they are sealed (kunukku).  All rulers receive the cosmic relics at enthronement, as with Mosiah II (Mosiah 1:16) and Joseph Smith, Jr.  The ruler is thereby commissioned to slay the enemy, even Labbu.  Again the ritual association of the slaying of Laban by Nephi is inescapable, even including the similarity of name of the evil entity!  All of this likewise is part of the call of a prophet, as John W. Welch has shown in his study of the call of Lehi.  Welch, "The Calling of a Prophet,"  in M. Nyman & C. Tate, eds., First Nephi: The Doctrinal Foundation (1988), 35-54.  Cf. Geo Widengren, The Ascension of the Apostle and the Heavenly Book (King and Saviour III) (1950), 11, 87; cf. the "taking of the lots (oracles)" (parsa lequ) ceremony = "consultation of the oracles" (šitūltu, parsi ilqi), Sumerian ME = Akkadian parsu (parsē),"oracle, lot, allotment, ordinance; plan of oracle" (= tērēti = Hebrew tora), 89.

The connection of the sacred gold plates with the path, spring, and tree of life in Lehi’s vision must also be emphasized, since they are all an integral part of Orphism from the 7th century B.C. into European Renaissance times, i.e., as with material from the Corpus Hermeticum, second and third century A.D. Orphic hymns were known still and utilized in Renaissance times by the likes of the magi Ficino and Pico della Mirandola, and it was claimed by them that Orpheus himself espoused the theology of the Trinity.  There were, of course, Orphic gold plates used in Hellenistic mystery religion, inscribed and used like Egyptian hypocephali.  C. W. Griggs, "Book of Mormon as an Ancient Book: Gold Plates and the Tree of Life from the Ancient Mediterranean," BYU Studies 22:3 [1982], 259ff.

Orphism required the “proper rituals and sacrifices by means of which one obtained absolution from one’s own and one’s ancestors sins.”  Plato, Republic, II:364bc, and 364e, Orphic cathartic ritual telestai “initiations” as described by O. Kern, Orphicorum Fragmenta (1922), 81-82; cf. Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis VII:1 (in Stählin edition [1905-1909], s.v. mysterion); S. Angus, The Mystery-Religions, 236-237, on the Orpheotelestae, the strolling mendicants of Orphism.

[clarkgoble]

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

In looking at Mormonism philosophically, It seems it all fits together pretty well as a cohesive world view, but when in my mind's eye I look at the "Tree" I tend to see this dead branch sticking out with no support, and that branch is the "gathering of Israel" branch which seems so prominent in certain scriptural passages and yet theologically it leads almost nowhere.  It's just kind of sticking up there serving no theological function which connects well to the other portions of a fairly cohesive world view, especially when later interpretation urged us to "gather" to exactly where we are geographically now.  That's a pretty strange "gathering"!

I'm just about to start reading again, but the gathering of Israel remains prominent throughout Joseph's life. He even makes it one of the articles of faith. I agree that it's one of the hardest doctrines to understand. Maybe as a prophecy of the future so one can read the signs of the times. But who cares if Jews gather to Israel in a more broad sense. Why is that more important than say some Indian tribe now in Montana returning to the midwest? We can say God fulfills his promises to prominent figures who helped him, but that seems about it.

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Philosophically it's kind of a deus ex machina that ties it all up as I see it.  Rationally it's unknowable so it doesn't matter as part of the "theory".  Yes we can have a testimony of it happening in the future but it does not really affect the theology as I see it.  My personal relationship with God is not affected by Adam-ondi-Ahman and how that fits into the philosophical paradigm of how I live my life.

It seems significant for sealing in terms of creating a large family. That's a bit different from the gathering theology I think. The theology of Adam-ondi-Ahman is more about creating a large family with the idea that it's the family that is saved and not individuals. As others have noted that somewhat at odds with the rampant individualism that characterizes American (and arguably most modern) thinking. Mormonism in that sense was very pre-modern and arguably ancient in opposition to Protestantism which adopted an individualism characteristic of modernism.

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I did note that Bradley wants Lehi to be a Jew, and not a member of the House of Joseph or Manasseh.  Thus, he argues for close Davidic monarchical connections, while the text seems to take the opposite position (anti-Davidic).  John Sorenson and I take the text to be Elohistic and Northern, rather than Jahwistic and Southern Judahite.

I noticed that as well and thought it was more than a little problematic. He does mention it in places like page 21, 73, 153 and others. I think the argument is that while the Book of Mormon is about the lost tribes (although Lehi's not exactly of the lost tribes since he was a Manasseh refugee to Judah or potentially Egypt) that picks up on the broader Jewish gathering culture.

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

He learned that he and Laban were Josephites early on (1 Ne 5:14,16, 6:2), but why did the Brass Plates contain that specifically Northern genealogy?  There is a lot we are not being told.  Joseph, or example, includes both Manasseh and Ephraim.   That he was a Manassite doesn't get stated until much later (Alma 10:3).  Why?

The Brass Plates can only have been a very rare and expensive book (perhaps saved from the Northern Kingdom royal court in 721 by Lehi's and Laban's scribal ancestors).  The BofLehi would presumably contain more detail.

But 1 Nephi gets translated after Moroni and the end of the book. So that is significant for the naturalistic thesis. That said since I obviously don't buy the naturalistic thesis (beyond as it relates to expansions or the nature of the phrases chosen for the translation) I think you raise some good points. 

 

Edited July 28, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm just about to start reading again, but the gathering of Israel remains prominent throughout Joseph's life. He even makes it one of the articles of faith. I agree that it's one of the hardest doctrines to understand. Maybe as a prophecy of the future so one can read the signs of the times. But who cares if Jews gather to Israel in a more broad sense. Why is that more important than say some Indian tribe now in Montana returning to the midwest? We can say God fulfills his promises to prominent figures who helped him, but that seems about it..............................

Joseph sent Orson Hyde to the Holy Land (Palestine) in 1841, where Hyde specifically dedicated that land to the final gathering of the Jews, and to the rebuilding of their temple.  About 6.5 million Jews now live in Israel, and the well-funded Jewish Temple Institute has been preparing for the rebuilding of their temple for some time now.

[clarkgoble]

Just finished the thesis. Have to admit that I'm surprised you guys saw it as embracing the fiction/fraud model. If anything I think he'll take heat for going too far the other direction. I think he could have made the connection far stronger by embracing a few other environmental elements. For instance the Mordecai Noah's ark and Jaredite barges. It's a little more afield from the central thesis yet would strengthen I think his argument for ties to the attempted Jewish gathering. As is, I have to admit that I think it works for shaping how early Mormons would view things. His explicit use of reader response criticism highlights that his emphasis isn't on the construction of the Book of Mormon narrative but its reception. Had he wanted to focus on the construction I think there's a lot more he could have said.

While most of the elements of the thesis, minus the Mordecai Noah connection, were found in his interview earlier this year on LDS Perspectives, there were a few that weren't. The idea of the stone box as an Ark of the Covenant like item is quite intriguing. I confess that this was a bit weaker. That is I completely buy the idea that the relics were significant and mirrored the Ark. That the box on Cumorah was an Ark I found kind of wanting in evidence. (Despite finding a few sources that called it that) That is at a crucial level I just don't think the resemblance of the box fits - the most problematic part being the description of the box by Joseph Smith. I think Don recognized some problems such as when he said:

• The interpreters were not, of course, the sole contents Joseph Smith reported finding in the stone “ark.” Most prominent among the artifacts of the stone box were the golden plates. Interestingly, Joseph’s new “ark” bearing plates paralleled but inverted the pattern of the biblical ark: in place of stone tablets in a golden ark, the Nephite sacred cache consisted of golden tablets in a stone ark. (93)

However the dissimilarities go beyond that. While Don emphasizes the stone box as ark and thus place of sacrifice the description I think ends up being so unlike the well known descriptions of the ark of the covenant that I think it problematic. While maybe this is a pragmatic limit due to the limits of working with stone, it is a big unaddressed issue. (See page 133 for instance where I think a discussion of the physical differences beyond composition -- gold/wood for the ark; stone for the neo-ark -- would have been welcome)

The important work I think Don's done is to argue, pretty persuasively, that the interpreters were intended from the beginning to be an Urim and Thummim. This wasn't merely a later development in 1832. Why the terminology doesn't reflect this though remains an issue. (Not really addressed in the thesis yet a point that stands out) 

Overall it's a fantastic work. I just don't see it as embracing the fiction/composition model at all. Also I think it pretty clear Don thinks the temple aspects go well beyond the Exodus temple into something more like the masonic elements of Nauvoo. Although he wisely only hints at those in a few places. (What is that in your hand?)

Edited July 30, 2018 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

On 7/27/2018 at 3:23 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

He learned that he and Laban were Josephites early on (1 Ne 5:14,16, 6:2), but why did the Brass Plates contain that specifically Northern genealogy?  There is a lot we are not being told.  Joseph, or example, includes both Manasseh and Ephraim.   That he was a Manassite doesn't get stated until much later (Alma 10:3).  Why?

The Brass Plates can only have been a very rare and expensive book (perhaps saved from the Northern Kingdom royal court in 721 by Lehi's and Laban's scribal ancestors).  The BofLehi would presumably contain more detail.

I suspect the Book of Lehi had information on this. I vaguely recall someone making an argument for that. It's not in the thesis and I checked Don's LDS Perspectives interview but didn't see anything. (BTW - thanks to LDS Perspectives for putting up transcripts. I wish more podcasts did - I know it's a lot of work but man is it useful) Don mentions that the Book of Lehi likely had a festival going on when Nephi gets the brass plates but that's it. In any case I think the idea that Lehi and Laban are related makes a lot of sense - otherwise why go to Laban in the first place? So they're both originally from refugee stock from the northern Kingdom, which makes a lot of sense.

The other thing I suspect is fleshed out is Lehi's connections to Egypt. People have speculated on that for decades of course. The idea is that their metallurgy skills imply trade and perhaps they were trading regularly with Egypt as well as regions among the Phoenicians. It's weird as Lehi is prophesying against Egypt yet so much of what they do is tied to Egypt. We know that Manasseh had close ties to Egypt. Many suspect the Elephantine colony in southern Egypt dates to when Manasseh sent troops to Egypt. This was under Psammetichusis I who was the first Egyptian King I believe after periods of Assyrian and Nubian rule. (Robert can correct me here as I obviously don't know much about Egypt) There's even speculation that under Zedekiah that troops were sent to Psammetichusis II for his wars with the Nubians which would have been very much what Lehi was protesting. It was Psammetichusis II's successor, Apries, who then refuses to support Judah against the Babylonians when push comes to shove. This is just prior to when the beginning of 1 Nephi since Jerusalem and the temple have been sacked and Zedekiah appointed King - in Don's thesis this is significant since the lost of the temple treasures justifies some of Lehi's acts in the wilderness and Lehi becomes in effect "true Israel" by having new treasures.

Again I think Don here is buying into the historical take on the Book of Mormon even if he is appealing to reader response criticism. I confess I have a hard time seeing Joseph as author getting into all these details and nuances even if he had been reading about Mordecai Noah in New York. There's a lot of nuance that even someone like me who is now older and has studied all this stuff a long time wasn't aware of that Don brought out. I confess I have a hard time seeing Joseph as knowing all this. Although I recognize that's not exactly a persuasive argument to skeptics.

On 7/28/2018 at 6:20 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Joseph sent Orson Hyde to the Holy Land (Palestine) in 1841, where Hyde specifically dedicated that land to the final gathering of the Jews, and to the rebuilding of their temple.  About 6.5 million Jews now live in Israel, and the well-funded Jewish Temple Institute has been preparing for the rebuilding of their temple for some time now.

Yup. Although in the thesis Don is largely just reconfiguring slightly Jan Shipps thesis. She has the focus on Israel and the Old Testament coming later. Don is arguing it was there by 1828 and then in 1830 drops with a focus on the New Testament only to return again. (He makes that clear in the last ⅓ of the thesis)

On 7/27/2018 at 6:28 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

The connection of the sacred gold plates with the path, spring, and tree of life in Lehi’s vision must also be emphasized, since they are all an integral part of Orphism from the 7th century B.C. into European Renaissance times, i.e., as with material from the Corpus Hermeticum, second and third century A.D. Orphic hymns were known still and utilized in Renaissance times by the likes of the magi Ficino and Pico della Mirandola, and it was claimed by them that Orpheus himself espoused the theology of the Trinity.  There were, of course, Orphic gold plates used in Hellenistic mystery religion, inscribed and used like Egyptian hypocephali.  C. W. Griggs, "Book of Mormon as an Ancient Book: Gold Plates and the Tree of Life from the Ancient Mediterranean," BYU Studies 22:3 [1982], 259ff.

To be fair the use of Orphean mysteries in the Renaissance was very much tied to a whole slew of related ideas and texts - especially the Corpus Hermeticum - to the point that it's not really the same religion as in Rome let alone before. Also most of the views of how these things were related were almost certainly wrong in terms of actual history but widely believed. What is unique with the more underground strain of esotericism that persisted through modernism was still believing this old Renaissance view of the history long after scholars had cast it to the dustbin. So you see a lot of nonsense history in say the masonic tradition as it jumbles all these diverse historical movements together. 

From a more naturalistic skeptical view though of course these traditions of gold plates in the Renaissance tradition that persisted in various guises including masonry become a significant influence on Joseph Smith. Say Enoch's gold plate -- not plates -- that was in Masonic legend. I think Don plays with that a bit in the thesis although he's only speaking about the High Priest's gold plate. (See page 93) I might be reading too much into his work here, but it's hard not to see the Masonic tradition there.

BTW as an aside, while I'm skeptical of the report, there was a claim that one of the stones from the ephod have been found. What was interesting to me is how similar looking it was to Joseph's brown seer stone. It's a different type of rock - sardonyx - from Joseph's of course. Josephus had described them as sardonyx so that was known at Joseph's time. (Antiquities of the Jews, 3.8) Although Josephus argued they were lost only around 200 BC not 600 BC. Going along with Don's thesis, a lot of these things were discussed in Masonic texts prior to 1828 such as Key to the First Chart of the Masonic Mirror. This not only going into the details of the tabernacle but gives interpretations that Mormons will quickly pick up on. The text is quoting Josephus here but is tied to the seven level of the Royal Arch:

• "When Moses distinguished the tabernacle into three parts, and allowed two two of them to the priests, as a place accessible and common, he denoted the land and the sea; for these are accessible to all. But when he set apart the third division for God, it was because heaven is inaccessible to men." (73)
• "Each of the sardonyxes declares to us the sun and the moon: those I mean that were in the nature of the buttons on the high priest's shoulders." (74)

The Royal Arch text also then quotes the Exodus sections that Don makes extensive use of.

This information also appears in anti-Masonic writings from the same pre-1828 period. (This is from the end of 1828) 

• ...contemplate upon the Royal Arch High Priest, installed after the order of Melchisedek, clad in the robes of Aaron, with hte ephod and mitre and Holiness to the Lord on his front. Recollect the word and password of a Royal Arch mason, I am that I am; also the grand omnific word, which hte heart refuses to indite in the varied blashemy of Royal Arch masonry; also, the scene on Mount Horeb, where a mortal assumes to speak in the personification of the great Jehovah. Think of the journey from Babylon to Jerusalem, in which Royal Arch masonry makes a rugged way for her chosen ones... (2.296)

There's other elements as well such as the above's discussion of Hiram of Tyre, which some Masons tied to Hiram Abiff. "...this man was skilful in all sorts of work, but his chief skill lay in working in gold, in silver, and brass; by him were made all the mechanical works about the temple." (quoting Josephus to argue against the identity but paralleling Lehi/Nephi)

There's a ton of other masonic writings that discuss the Urim and Thummin and some of the other elements Don discusses from the relevant period. An other one discussing how the High Priest consulted the U&T.

• ...the high priest, having then his eyes fixed upon the stones of the breastplate, which was before him, he there read the answer of the Lord. The letters that raised themselves out of their places, and that shined with more than ordinary lustre, were formed into the answer desired. (180)

There are some differences from how people describe Joseph's use of the U&T of course. That same text argues the U&T was only used when there was a tabernacle but not in the Temple of Solomon as then the prophets were consulted. (182)

I raise all this not because I deny historicity in the least. Rather, much like I think Don's thesis proposes, that this shapes the nature of Joseph's early conception of a more Hebrew nature. That is I think there was a lot of temple stuff in the Book of Mormon. I just go beyond Don's thesis and think that the masonic elements were there early. Not anti-masonic but embracing the masonic as elements of the Nephite in the form of the translation. I know critics bring up anti-masonry relative to the Gadianton Robbers but I'm here arguing more for say Alma 13. The Anti-Masonic Review really sounds a lot like that conflict between Alma/Amulek and the Zoramites. They reject (198):

• ...claim to be, or to make, priests after the order of Melchisedek "without father, without mother, and without descent.
• ...claim to be, or to make, priests after the order of Aaron, publicly set forth by assuming the robe, breastplate, and mitre of Aaron...

This is all again relative to the Royal Arch degree tied to so much Don discusses in his thesis. I should also note that Alma 13 probably would have been translated in April or early May 1829 by the latest. 

It's also worth noting probably that Mordecai Noah, so key to Don's thesis, had strong masonic ties. The ceremony for his site for the gathering on Sept 2, 1825, had Noah leading a large procession heady by Masons. So Noah was explicitly making Masonic connections for his gathering. Noah was himself a Royal Arch Mason. There's actually a whole interesting bit of the history of Mordecai Noah tied to Masonry with various political factions within Masonry who were his enemies.

Again I suspect Don knows all this. There's several places where phraseology aludes to various Masonic stuff. I suspect he kept it out of the thesis to keep it more focused. I'd be curious if in the original plan the Masonic stuff was intended.

Edited July 30, 2018 by clarkgoble

[USU78]

Some additional thoughts:

6.  Lehi and Nephi after him took on themselves priestly functions to go along with their patriarchal/kingly functions, and the "ruling" line kept exercising those functions until Mosiah II abdicated.  This is, I think, a very neat trick, quite similar to Jeroboam's trick in usurping the lineage-based priesthood rights of the Levites/Cohenim.  I speculate that there may well have been an expansion in the BoL on matters of priesthood in the earliest days of the Lehite/Nephite polity.  I was a hairlash disappointed that Don didn't quite address what to the Lehites must have been a huge problem:  We've got the relics; We've got the records; We'll be able to preserve our peoplehood and our language; but How are we going to have people officiating in priestly duties without bagging us a Cohen or two?

7.  The issue of Nephi's kingship has been treated over and over again elsewhere, and I like how Don included mention of the Nephi/David/Goliath matter, because, of course, there can be no sacred kingship without a tangible symbol of the King's power, authority, and right to rule.  Laban's sword fits the bill just like Wotan/Siegmund/Siegfried's sword Nothung (which put both Siegmund and Sieglinde into ecstasy when its location was revealed), Charlemagne's Joyeuse, Arthur's Excalibur, etc.  See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_swords, where Laban's sword gets a mention among other legendary swords.  I imagine the BoL would have told us more about who Laban was besides a bigshot relative and where/who he got his sword from.  Epics throughout history make a big deal out of lineages of both kings/heroes and their weaponry.  The BoM tells us precious little, just as the Tanakh does, about the history of the King's Legendary Sword, other than it was in each instance won through the overthrow of a powerful bad guy.

8.  The stone box in which Moroni deposited the Nephite temple treasury's sacred relics need not be seen itself as being of significance as the Ark had been, except to the extent that stone box was the same stone box in which the peripatetic Lehites/Nephites carried them during their travels.  There's a good argument against the original Lehites having a stone box, as they appear not to have had enough people in their group to carry a stone box full of sacred things all the way to Yemen by foot, then by ship, then by hand again in the new Eretz Israel.  I suppose they could have hired it done or pressed people into acting as bearers, but the extant text makes this unlikely.  At earliest this stone box would have been constructed at Nephi or in the land of First Inheritance.  But I'm not seeing it in the extant text.  The BoL text ought to address this question.

9.  Kathy Sheets' murderer sought to sell his intended magnum opus by leaking bits of information about the 116 Pages, including hints on Lehi's commercial activities, which he tied to precious metal/precious stone trade between Judah and Egypt.  I was struck by Don's inclusion of this speculation in his thesis  ...  at USU  ...  where I met Kathy Sheet's murderer a few times, since his wife and her roommates were in my FHE group back a million years ago.  It brought back a lot of memories of the dour, unpleasant not-yet-murderer.  I'd quite forgotten him until the press showed pictures of his wife.  It is entirely plausible that Lehi and his sons had engaged in such a trade, and that the BoL would expand on the issue.

10.  The Temple material is pretty obvious in the extant BoM.  Mahonri/Moses/Nephi parallels are numerous.  I agree that we should expect Mosiah I, the Israelite/Lehite Moses, would experience at a hill, either literally or in vision, a theophany or ritual theophany in an actual temple/tabernacle, in which the scene would look a whole lot like Exodus and Ether.

11.  I was surprised by the excellent notion of the latest-dictated section of the BoM being so full of express Christianity precisely because it was dictated after Christ's visit to the Bountiful Temple.  Had we not had this happen as it did, perhaps the translation would have referred to Messiah and Savior instead of Christ and Jesus.

12.  I had never considered the NY Cumorah relics as the salvaged Nephite temple relics before.  Assuming Don's right in what the earliest Mormons thought about them and their recovery site, it completely changes the picture for JSJr and his pre-4/6/30 circle.  It also puts into serious question the Hurlbut, etc affidavits, etc:  their content is by and large wholly inconsistent with the earliest, per Don, intentions of JSJr.

 

Edited July 30, 2018 by USU78

[clarkgoble]

37 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I was a hairlash disappointed that Don didn't quite address what to the Lehites must have been a huge problem:  We've got the relics; We've got the records; We'll be able to preserve our peoplehood and our language; but How are we going to have people officiating in priestly duties without bagging us a Cohen or two?

That's where the line divides between historicists and fictionalists. Don was (wisely I might add) just looking at what can be supported from the text or reasonable descriptions of what was probably on the text. So it's understandable he didn't address that although I'd not be shocked to find the Book of Lehi did address it.

For the fictionalists I think the Masonic connection I posted above answers that. For the historicists, like myself, I think looking at Deuteronomist reforms/centralization handles that as does the idea of the School of the Prophets (in the OT sense) being tied to the Sons of Moses as an alternative priesthood. (Also in D&C 84 so not completely out of the question for this earlier period) Interestingly doing a quick Google search there's no entry for Sons of Moses prior to 1840. Of course Google Books is hardly exhaustive but it is perhaps interesting that this wasn't discussed as much during the period in question.

Quote

The issue of Nephi's kingship has been treated over and over again elsewhere, and I like how Don included mention of the Nephi/David/Goliath matter, because, of course, there can be no sacred kingship without a tangible symbol of the King's power, authority, and right to rule. 

Yeah I didn't mention it, but I also really liked that section.

Quote

The stone box in which Moroni deposited the Nephite temple treasury's sacred relics need not be seen itself as being of significance as the Ark had been, except to the extent that stone box was the same stone box in which the peripatetic Lehites/Nephites carried them during their travels. 

I'm not sure it has to be the one Nephi carried or that Mosiah1 brought with him. Don clearly sees the curved edges (page 133) as indicative that it might have been used for sacrifice but that seems very speculative. I didn't really buy that section at all, although I'd note Don did find someone referring to it as an ark. 

He didn't make it explicit (or maybe I missed it somehow) but I think the idea is that Cumorah once was the site of an actual Nephite temple. If one buys that, then I'd concede that seems to make Don appear more in the fictionalist camp. I'm not sure he intended that though. There's nothing in Moroni's account suggesting there was a temple there. If anything Moroni's description suggests the opposite. Further were there a temple we'd expect ruins. Of course for a fictionalist that might not matter since with the Book of Lehi lost there's no reason to be consistent. However you'd think, for a fictionalist, Joseph would be fearful the Book of Lehi would still be brought out and contradict Moroni.

Lacking a real Temple of Nephi at Cumorah, then you end up with Moroni either constructing the box on site or carrying it somehow. That seems difficult to do - even if he could assign troops to do that.

Quote

Kathy Sheets' murderer sought to sell his intended magnum opus by leaking bits of information about the 116 Pages, including hints on Lehi's commercial activities, which he tied to precious metal/precious stone trade between Judah and Egypt.  I was struck by Don's inclusion of this speculation in his thesis 

I think Hoffmann was using speculation already in apologetics for that bit. I want to say it was in Nibley's Lehi in the Desert or An Approach to the Book of Mormon but I don't have an ebook version to check. I think Hoffman wanted to use what people expected and more importantly wanted to find as evidence. Were he forging today I'm sure he'd forge it using information from Don's writings.

37 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I was surprised by the excellent notion of the latest-dictated section of the BoM being so full of express Christianity precisely because it was dictated after Christ's visit to the Bountiful Temple.  Had we not had this happen as it did, perhaps the translation would have referred to Messiah and Savior instead of Christ and Jesus.

I confess this didn't work for me simply because there's ton of Christology in Mosiah and Alma that seems to match anything in 1 Nephi - Jacob. We have an emphasis on baptism is Mosiah 18. We have a fairly robust sense of atonement in Alma 34. We even have the idea of believing in Christ leading to atonement in Mosiah 4:2 which is pretty close to when the translation work restarts.

 

Edited July 30, 2018 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

On 7/27/2018 at 2:52 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I did note that Bradley wants Lehi to be a Jew, and not a member of the House of Joseph or Manasseh.  Thus, he argues for close Davidic monarchical connections, while the text seems to take the opposite position (anti-Davidic).  John Sorenson and I take the text to be Elohistic and Northern, rather than Jahwistic and Southern Judahite.

Just to comment on this bit by Robert that I'd meant to earlier. I'm not sure I agree here. I think he emphasizes Lehi as a Moses figure and America as the new promised land against the Davidic monarchy. That is the point with Mordecai Noah is that Noah can't justify a gathering from exile to a place other than Jerusalem. Joseph can because of Lehi's promise. Now of course Jews wouldn't likely find that persuasive, but Don's point is that it'd seem to avoid some of Noah's problems getting Jews to gather in America by showing a precedence and religious justification. 

Don breaks with Davidic monarchy strongest when he has the issue of Mosiah1 and the "Mulochites." The former is Manasseh and the latter Judah and explicit ties to a Davidic King lineage. Starting on page 172 he explains this. America is the new Jerusalem for the Nephites. It's their promised land. It's not the Davidic promised land. (I confess I don't find this terribly persuasive as an explanation for why the Mulekites let the Nephites rule them, even if typologically it does work in terms of how Nephi explains things in 1 Nephi - 2 Nephi) But Don definitely is making that point you make. 

The typological significance of this is unifying Jews with Indians in America in proto-Zionism. The idea is that the Jews would help the Indians regain their lost lineage, much as Mosiah1 had. (Since the Mulekites had no writing and lost their origins -- although I've always wondered how they knew they were descended from Mulek wihtout writing) So in Don's view, what Mormonism offers over Noah is giving justification for there being a new Jerusalem precisely by breaking with the Davidic King and having a replacement in Nephi taking the Davidic line's place. While Don doesn't raise it in this section I suspect, given his comments in other sections, he might say that Mosiah1 had the sacred relics and tabernacle while the Mulekites don't. That is Mosiah1 is greater than the Davidic King because he has the power from God and the temple. 

Although again I think he's more explaining how early Mormons would see this and less as why Joseph would write this as fiction. 

Edited July 31, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Rajah Manchou]

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

For the fictionalists I think the Masonic connection I posted above answers that. For the historicists, like myself, I think looking at Deuteronomist reforms/centralization handles that as does the idea of the School of the Prophets (in the OT sense) being tied to the Sons of Moses as an alternative priesthood. (Also in D&C 84 so not completely out of the question for this earlier period) Interestingly doing a quick Google search there's no entry for Sons of Moses prior to 1840. Of course Google Books is hardly exhaustive but it is perhaps interesting that this wasn't discussed as much during the period in question.

Try "bnei moshe" or "banu musa" or "beney mosheh". There's also material under variations of the children of moses:

MOSES, CHILDREN OF (; Arabic, "Banu Musa")

This is also worth a read:

The "People of Moses" (Beney Mosheh)

The tradition was that the Sons of Moses resided with the Rechabites beyond the Sabbath River. Mordechai Noah was no doubt familiar with these accounts and worked them into his efforts to bring the downtrodden Jews of India and Africa to America, so they could be united with the Native Americans in preparation for the Messianic age. (source)

Curiously, there was a black slave from Madagascar in Mordechai Noah's home synagogue who claimed to be a Rechabite, and as such was allowed full participation in the Beth Elohim community. This was, of course, unheard of in the Antebellum South. I can't yet resolve the dates, but since Beth Elohim was Mordechai Noah's home congregation, I suspect this to be an influence on Noah's attempt to provide a refuge to the Beni Israel (first temple "black jews" of India and Africa) and to unite them with Native Americans in New York.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Try "bnei moshe" or "banu musa" or "beney mosheh". 

Yeah, I'd tried that at the time. 

[DonBradley]

Friends,

Hey! I'm excited to see the discussion on this here!

I've been able to read the thread only very lightly to this point. And for a few reasons, I should try to keep my engagement here minimal. But I would like to say some general things in dialogue with what's come up so far.

1. It's important to note that my thesis is not my book on the lost 116 pages! Rather, my thesis and the book overlap, with the thesis providing a fraction of what will be in the book on the subject of what was in the lost pages. As such, my discussion in the thesis about the lost pages' contents is not meant to be very complete. The book manuscript should be complete by the end of this year, and, hopefully, in print September 2019.

2. Clark - great stuff on Masonry! I haven't been able to digest what you've posted in detail yet, but am saving it for that purpose. I think we are going similar directions, since I see Mormonism as in many ways very "Masonic" from the start.

3. I perceive ancient patterns in the Book of Mormon text, most clearly and powerfully in the narratives of Lehi, Nephi, and Mosiah I, and I see the Book of Mormon as, therefore, a vehicle for the restoration of elements of ancient Israelite faith that had since been lost.

4. A caveat: I'm an historian of 19th century American religion and necessarily approach early Mormon texts to a great extent from the vantage point of that specialization. And this necessarily shapes my work. In trying to piece together the context and content of the lost manuscript, I'm analyzing a variety of 19th century sources and weaving them together. I think this angle of approach has considerable strengths. But it also has its limitations. Someone with a specialization in ancient history, and with a broad scope of history across the past few thousand years, would doubtless be able to bring much greater clarity to many aspects of the Book of Mormon than I can. There are things in the Book of Mormon, including specifically in the knowable narrative of the Book of Lehi, that seem for all the world to me to come out of the world of ancient Israel. But, lacking the relevant specializations, I admit that I am not well positioned to make such scholarly judgments strongly, and I leave it to others to analyze the text in detail within an ancient context. I accept these limitations with humility, but also with alacrity. While I do not, and really cannot, have a perspective that brings out every aspect of the Book of Mormon text, I have a pretty powerful microscope for bringing out some things. And I love putting that microscope to use to see what pictures will emerge. One of the things I'm able to do pretty well--I think!--is line up the 19th century sources and see what they tell us about what was in the Book of Lehi manuscript. Hopefully others will then look at the Book of Lehi's narratives through the lens of the ancient world, and see what light that perspective brings to them. I welcome that. I'm not trying to say the last word on what was in the lost 116 pages, more like a first word--an invitation to greater scholarly discussion from various angles.

5. In my thesis, and in my book, I am trying to address multiple audiences--believer and nonbeliever alike. The more important of these audiences to me is believers, my fellow Latter-day Saints. In my book, I use our shared language of faith: e.g., that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. But in trying to address all my audiences, I overwhelmingly confine my presentation of evidence about what was in the lost pages to evidence that can be agreed upon by believer and nonbeliever alike. I think there's only place in the body of my book manuscript where I make an explicit assumption of historicity. In all other cases, I place any evidence that assumes historicity in the footnotes, so that the arguments in the body of the text will be equally accessible to all readers.

6. The perspective I offer in the conclusion to my thesis, that Joseph Smith may have seen the hand of Providence in how the events of his life lined up with the events of the narratives he revealed, is not just a theoretical possibility for me; it is a personal belief. 

When I began my research into the lost pages, about 14 years ago, I saw how some elements of the Book of Mormon's narrative (including the Book of Lehi narrative) connected with things going on in Joseph Smith's life as he was translating. After puzzling over these connections for a while, I soon began interpreting them under a model that saw Joseph constructing a narrative to fit his context. With time, and considerably more analysis, I have arrived at a radically different perspective than I then held. While I then saw Joseph acting as a "fraud," the data of my last several years of research has convinced me, even quite apart from my spiritual convictions, that Joseph was perfectly sincere. I have no doubt, on historical grounds alone, that Joseph Smith sincerely acted as a prophet and translator to give the world an ancient work of scripture.

How, then, would Joseph have seen the connections between what was going on in the narratives he translated and what was going on in his own life at the time he translated them? My working conclusion is that he saw divine Providence lining these up, and possibly even as providing events in his life as grist for his translation mill as he "studied out in his mind" the words of translation. And this is a perspective that I not only think he held; it is one that I hold: I think God shaped Joseph Smith's life to lead him in the right direction.

I don't ultimately know to what extent God was involved in tailoring these events, and I don't know what admixture of ancient and modern influences he used to shape the Book of Mormon's content as we've received it. I'm open to a range of understandings on this. But as curious as I am about it--and it is a big question, I leave it, at least for the time being, to God. I'm content to let God be God and do things His way, without me to tell Him how He should have done it.

I don't feel a need to claim certainty about the details of how God brought all this together. If still quite curious, I am nonetheless content to know that God did bring it all together--that He brought forth the Book of Mormon as an instrument of restoration, and as a book that brings me closer to Him. That it has done just that, I am a witness.

Don

 

[clarkgoble]

33 minutes ago, DonBradley said:

1. It's important to note that my thesis is not my book on the lost 116 pages! Rather, my thesis and the book overlap, with the thesis providing a fraction of what will be in the book on the subject of what was in the lost pages. As such, my discussion in the thesis about the lost pages' contents is not meant to be very complete. The book manuscript should be complete by the end of this year, and, hopefully, in print September 2019.

Thanks for clarifying that. After reading the thesis I was curious how much your book was a reworking of the thesis since that's what a lot of people do after they finish their thesis.

33 minutes ago, DonBradley said:

2. Clark - great stuff on Masonry! I haven't been able to digest what you've posted in detail yet, but am saving it for that purpose. I think we are going similar directions, since I see Mormonism as in many ways very "Masonic" from the start.

I should note that most of what I quote is either just the Old Testament or else Josephus. It's just quoted out of Masonic related texts that give it a somewhat unique shape. What's interesting is how tied to Masonry it is. In particular the Royal Arch form of Masonry and a particular degree tied to the OT high priesthood. I'm not sure one could establish he had access to the books I listed. I think it'd be interesting to establish a strong connection to Royal Arch Masonry in the 1828 period. Again Mordecai Noah has that connection, but I'm not sure Joseph necessarily would be aware of that nuance at the time. (Although it's certainly plausible he might)

My sense is that the standard naturalistic view is that Joseph starts with Masonic influences via the anti-Masonic movement. (Partially due to Martin Harris' well known anti-Masonic views) It's then not until Nauvoo that he reworks Masonry. I think this is wrong because I think it clear from early on Joseph has a wider connection to what some might call esoteric influences. (I can't recall the current popular term in History) Certainly neoplatonism is an element, as I think Steve Flemming has established. It's hard to read D&C 88 & 93 without seeing the strong neoplatonic influences. That's 1832. Even in the Book of Mormon though there are elements of such influences even if not quite as pronounced as in 1832.

I just think Masonry was much more widespread in early Mormonism than even most naturalistic critics think. However pinning down the details can be hard for a variety of reasons. But even separating out what is Masonic from what is part of the broader esoteric and Renaissance tradition can be difficult. There's not a clear line between the two - especially when later people like Pike start seeing writing about connections in everything from hermeticism to allegorized platonic like readings of various structures.

 

Edited August 2, 2018 by clarkgoble