Cohesive Narrative of the fabricated Book of Mormon?

[InCognitus]

On 8/20/2021 at 11:01 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

Thanks for these references. I'll have to pick up Schooling the Prophet.

If you get the book, let us know what you think of it and if it answers your question.  I'm curious about the book too.

On 8/20/2021 at 11:01 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

I'm looking for any references of Joseph discussing any of the stories or characters in the Book of Mormon. Were there any times he, for example, spoke of Nephi breaking his bow, or the Lehites building their ship to cross the waters, or retelling King Benjamin's speech to his followers?

I don't find anything, and it seems unusual.

I think most accounts of that nature would be from the journals or public statements of other individuals who heard Joseph Smith discuss those kinds of details in casual conversation, and not in public sermons from Joseph Smith himself.  A few that come to mind can be found in Don Bradley's book, The Lost 116 Pages - Reconstructing the Book of Mormon's Missing Stories.

Here's one example from Don Bradley's discussion on "The Lineages of Laban, Ishmael, and Zoram" starting on page 157.  He quotes an 1896 account from Elder Franklin D. Richards, who recalled hearing Joseph Smith explain how the Book of Mormon could fulfill Ezekiel's prophecy of "the stick of Ephraim" or "stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephriam" (Ezek. 37:16, 19):

Quote

Away back in 1843 . . . [at Joseph Smith's Mansion House] I ventured to walk in, and scarcely had more than time to exchange usual civilities, when this brother said: "Brother Joseph, how is it that we call the Book of Mormon the Stick of Joseph in the hands of Ephraim, when the book itself tells us [in Alma 10:3] that Lehi was of the lineage of Manasseh? I cannot find in it about the seed of Ephraim dwelling on this land at all." Joseph replied: 

"You will recollect that when Lehi and his family had gone from Jerusalem out into the wilderness, he sent his son Nephi back to the city to get the plates which contained the law of Moses and many prophecies of the prophets, and that he also brought out Ishmael and his family, which were mostly daughters. This Ishmael and his family were of the lineage of Ephraim, and Lehi's sons took Ishmael's daughters for wives, and this is how they have grown together, 'a multitude of nations in the midst of the earth' [Gen. 48:16, 19 about Ephraim].  If we had those one hundred and sixteen pages of prophecy Martin Harris got away with, you would know all about it, for is made very plain therein. The Lord told me not to translate it over to take from Nephi' s other plates until 1 came to the period Of time other translation was broken off, and then go on with Mormon's abridgment again. That is how it came about that Ishmael's lineage was not given in the of Mormon, as well as Lehi's." 

He also quotes Erastus Snow as also hearing Joseph Smith talk about Lehi and his family, and Nephi marrying Ishmael's daughters, and their linage being that of Ephraim.  

[Navidad]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Twice in your life, you get pulled over by a man in a pickup truck, dressed in jeans and a plain colored shirt claiming to be a plain clothes cop. In both cases you were driving at 100 mph in a 60 mph zone.  Odd coincidence- just to make a point.

Assume that this actually happened.  In both cases, you refused to believe the person!

The first time this happened, you refused to believe him, and argued with him, and eventually he admitted he was just kidding, and took off leaving you alone

In the second instance, the same thing happened!  But this time he handcuffed you and took you to jail!

What kind of glow or spiritual evidence would have convinced you that one had authority and one did not?

Why do you expect that a plain human being claiming authority would stand out in some visible way to show "authority"?

Does one get the glow when he is first ordained?

Does it take years ?  Does it appear the moment one is granted the authority?   Does it take a month or a year for one to recognize it?   by what mechanism?

Or another idea- in the notion of the "priesthood of all believers" what mark of authority does one when receive when one becomes a "believer"

Does every Evangelical ordained minister/reverend have a certain glow around them?   If you meet them on the street in street clothes does their authority pop out at you?

Or on the other hand, why have orained ministers anyway if no one can tell them from ordained ministers anyway?   What happens when someone is "ordained" when everyone who is a member already has the priesthood?   What is the purpose of being ordained?

My point of course is that there are no outward signs of authority.

I think the use of the word "glow" is a little bit simplistic, but no, I am not looking for a glow. So we can set that aside.  How does an LDS priesthood holder live his life in a way that mirrors or reflects that high and extraordinarily rare calling of being one of a few who hold the only priesthood authority on all the earth? What should I look for in the LDS priesthood holders engaged in this forum?

The claims of onliness that have been developed by the church over almost two centuries are quite striking and singular - one of which is the only valid priesthood authority. So yes, I would expect there to be some greater spiritual maturity, some greater manifestation of righteousness, holiness - pick the word that you think best. Of course I would also look for the same in an ordained minister of any church, but even more so to those provided such an extraordinarily rare gift such as LDS priests claim, which no ordained Methodist pastor claims. It seems to me that the equivalence is between an ordained minister or deacon in a non-LDS church and a priesthood holder within the church LDS church than between the priesthood of believers in I Peter 2 and the LDS priesthood holder.

Are there many male baptized LDS males who do not hold the priesthood? I think you don't need a temple recommend or to be sealed or endowed to hold the priesthood in the LDS church. Isn't that correct? What percentage of male members of the church over 16 years of age hold the priesthood in the LDS sense? Is the percentage the same for those who may perform baptisms of their children or someone else's? Cannot a male family member who holds the priesthood pray the blessing prayer over a newborn baby? In other words perform the basic ordinances of the church? So in my thinking I am thinking of the perhaps 98% (to throw out a rough number) of the male LDS members who hold the priesthood and may perform at least some of the LDS ordinances as over and against the 1 in 500 folks (I am making up a number) in the Mennonite church who can perform ordinances. Those are the two populations with equivalent authority in each church, are they not? Do you think a male LDS priesthood holder may and perhaps should demonstrate a greater spirituality, righteousness in his life than that partly saved, not on the path to exaltation non-LDS Christian?  Thanks for engaging me. I appreciate it.

[Kevin Christensen]

On 8/22/2021 at 11:17 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Easy to say. Easy to convince those that want to believe. Harder to actually demonstrate. Especially since much of the Isaiah in the Book of Mormon post dates Lehi’s exodus. 

By me, a skeptical brush off of the Book of Mormon, a plea for a coercieve demonstration, that is, "First you must compell my unwilling submission because why should anyone have faith in the absence of absolute proof?" misses the point both of faith and of the dependence of science on faith.  And if you are holding out for a God who will compell your unwilling submission, think about what that means for your potential relationship.  That sounds more like slavery than love, conquest rather than invitation.

All paradigm choice involves deciding "Which problems are more significant to have solved."  Raising the Isaiah question is legitimate, but the just raising the Isaiah question itself does not provide a comprehensive and coherent explanation of the Book of Mormon.  And the Isaiah question itself is more complex than you convey here.   We don't have first editions and copyright dates for each of the proposed divisions, but theories to account for what we have.  Some theories, no matter how popular in certain academic circles, do not actually account for all that we have.  For instance, read this on Isaiah 53 as directly inspired by Hezekiah's bout with the plague, which makes it pre-exilic and supported not just by literary questions, but archeology related to details otherwise unaddressed or explained.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/FourthServantSong.pdf

I have never seen this Barker essay mentioned by those critical of Abinadi's quotation of Isaiah 53.  Of course, I did not mention it either, when I wrote the "Open Questions and Suggestions Regarding Isaiah in the Book of Mormon" section of Paradigms Regained.   There I sketched out a several intriguing aspects of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon.  Barker's essay improves the case for that chapter, and her work in The Older Testament raises questions yet to be addressed by skeptics relying on "everyone knows Second Isaiah post dates Lehi's departure."  I point out some interesting implications in my chapter here, where I also draw on the big FARMS volume on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon.

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/paradigms-regained-survey-margaret-barkers-scholarship-and-its-significance-mormon-studies

So it is one thing to raise a question, but quite another thing to completely ignore a great many existing answers.  Should I use a question as an excuse to stop looking, rather than as a place to both investigate further, and to weigh on a balance compared to many other issues?   Ask Othello how that worked for him on the question of Desdemona's guilt or innocence.  It is one thing to say, "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?" (John 7:47), and quite another to consider carefully "Why do some people believe on him?"  In the absence of absolute "knowing", what do we offer as mind explanding and soul enlarging, fruitful and promising "cause to believe" (Alma 32) worth considering and explaining?

As Kuhn puts it:

Quote

The issue is which paradigm should in the future guide research on problems many of which neither competitor can yet claim to resolve completely. A decision between alternate ways of practicing science is called for, and in the circumstances that decision must be based less on past achievement than on future promise... A decision of that kind can only be made on faith. (Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 157-158). 

It is important to be aware that people operating under different paradigms tend to use their own paradigms in decision making, which means, operating under self-referential standards.  We cannot escape that, but we can learn to be self critical, to consider the implications of our own basic approach, to be comparative rather than just self-referential,  and to deliberately appeal to criteria that are not completely paradigm-dependent.  

Quote

Particularly persuasive arguments can be developed if the new paradigm permits the prediction of phenomena that had been entirely unsuspected while the old one prevailed. (Kuhn, 154)

Some of my favorite "entirely unsuspected" arguments in favor of the Book of Mormon include Nibley on Lehi's qasida, First Temple Judiasm in the Book of Mormon (that is, Margaret Barker's unexpected work, first beginning to appear in 1987), the whole Arabian Journey to the Valley of Lemuel, Nahom, and Bountiful, as depicted in the Aston's work, Larry Poulson's FAIR presentation on the descriptions of the New World, Brant Gardner's work, Nibley on the Forty Day Ministry compared to 3 Nephi, Welch on the Temple setting of 3 Nephi, Eliade's The Myth of Eternal Return: Cosmos and History compared to 3 Nephi, Daniel Peterson on modern theorists of guerilla warfare compared to the Book of Mormon, NDE research compared to the Book of Mormon, Alan Goff applying Robert Alter's The Art of Biblical Narrative to the Book of Mormon, Richard L. Anderson contrasting other modern Gospels to the Book of Mormon, Brian Stubb's work on linguistics, Matt Bowen's Name as Key Word on hidden Hebrew word play, and of course, much much more that I have never seen so much as mentioned, let alone explained, by appeals to "stone in hat is weird" and "What about Second Isaiah?" claimants.

Kuhn points out that one of the most important criteria for paradigm choice is "puzzle definition and solution."  Puzzle dismissal without bothering with detailed solution is not at all the same thing.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited August 24, 2021 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Easy to say. Easy to convince those that want to believe. Harder to actually demonstrate. Especially since much of the Isaiah in the Book of Mormon post dates Lehi’s exodus. 

This is a spiritual thing.

Who actually dictated the BOM to Joseph?

Deutero Isaiah, the person? Then we have the old English theory.

I don't need anything but a spiritual witness, the mechanics to me are irrelevant. I also don't care about what psychedelic Joseph was on - that's one theory.

All I know with unshakable certainty is that some spiritual being wants me in this church, and confirms it regularly, and his/her guidance has changed my life infinitely for the better.

And I gave up LSD for LDS 50 years ago

But read Joe Spencer 's take on this, on Isaiah and Nephi.  He is a VERY smart dude. I am just getting into it.

And trust me, he knows about D.I. More than anyone else, possibly.

Read up on it, I am just getting started.

Edited August 23, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

The claims of onliness that have been developed by the church over almost two centuries are quite striking and singular - one of which is the only valid priesthood authority. So yes, I would expect there to be some greater spiritual maturity, some greater manifestation of righteousness, holiness - pick the word that you think best. Of course I would also look for the same in an ordained minister of any church, but even more so to those provided such an extraordinarily rare gift such as LDS priests claim, which no ordained Methodist pastor claims. It seems to me that the equivalence is between an ordained minister or deacon in a non-LDS church and a priesthood holder within the church LDS church than between the priesthood of believers in I Peter 2 and the LDS priesthood holder.

Sorry I don't have much time today, but your comments show how little about the LDS church you have gained in your environs.

 But that is for another day.

 Regarding the need for authority without regard to the morality of the person  Holding the priesthood, think of Catholicism.

 The idea that a sinful man could hold the priesthood by authority gyesterday goes back at least 2000 years. We did not invent it. In fact of course it is the protestants who came up with a doctrine that authority was not necessary and that all had it.

 I hope to have time to get back to the other points in this post soon. Thanks for your reply.

[Navidad]

41 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry I don't have much time today, but your comments show how little about the LDS church you have gained in your environs.

 But that is for another day.

 Regarding the need for authority without regard to the morality of the person  Holding the priesthood, think of Catholicism.

 The idea that a sinful man could hold the priesthood by authority gyesterday goes back at least 2000 years. We did not invent it. In fact of course it is the protestants who came up with a doctrine that authority was not necessary and that all had it.

 I hope to have time to get back to the other points in this post soon. Thanks for your reply.

Hola amigo: I just want to make sure we aren't talking past each other because of differences in meaning of terms. I don't think the royal priesthood that all believers share grants authority. I think it grants access. Every Christian by virtue of that royal priesthood (royal because of the type of Melchizedek and the reality of Christ the Redemptor King) has direct access to the father. As you do, we pray in the name of Christ; He fulfilled once and for all the Hebraic priesthood. I believe you and I both hold the royal priesthood of I Peter 2 which is a much more significant priesthood than what the LDS men mean by their priesthood (obviously in my opinion only). It is my truth, probably not yours. 

An LDS priesthood holder can use his priesthood to perform certain ordinances, just like an ordained or licensed (in some groups) minister can in other Christian groups (but only in his or her group or a group that accepts his or her authority. In that sense the authority of the LDS priesthood holder in the LDS church is the same as the authority of the ordained person in another non-LDS setting. Why can't LDS women baptize? Because they don't hold the same priesthood that is available to the men so they don't have the same authority - the  type of administrative authority to perform certain ordinances.

Obviously I can't baptize in an LDS setting. Obviously, you can't baptize in a Baptist setting. Thus both our authorities (yours as an LDS priesthood holder) and mine as an ordained non-LDS minister are both limited. Marriage is an ordinance in our church that I can and have performed. I may be wrong, but I do not think an LDS priesthood holder has the authority from either the church or the state to perform  marriages. I believe stake presidents, bishops, and mission presidents can perform "authorized" civil marriages in the LDS community. To seal a couple requires sealing authority. That is a special authority, is it not? Absent sealing authority, a priesthood holder may not seal, correct? So there are levels of authority in all churches, including yours and mine. It is narrowly defined and limited by those in charge of such things in each group. Such authority extends only to the boundaries of each group and not beyond. It is very different than the royal priesthood talked about by Peter, where authority is not the principle attribute. I hope that helps clarify some things from my perspective. So often I think we are a people divided by a common language.

[bOObOO]

26 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hola amigo: I just want to make sure we aren't talking past each other because of differences in meaning of terms. I don't think the royal priesthood that all believers share grants authority. I think it grants access. Every Christian by virtue of that royal priesthood (royal because of the type of Melchizedek and the reality of Christ the Redemptor King) has direct access to the father. As you do, we pray in the name of Christ; He fulfilled once and for all the Hebraic priesthood. I believe you and I both hold the royal priesthood of I Peter 2 which is a much more significant priesthood than what the LDS men mean by their priesthood (obviously in my opinion only). It is my truth, probably not yours. 

An LDS priesthood holder can use his priesthood to perform certain ordinances, just like an ordained or licensed (in some groups) minister can in other Christian groups (but only in his or her group or a group that accepts his or her authority. In that sense the authority of the LDS priesthood holder in the LDS church is the same as the authority of the ordained person in another non-LDS setting. Why can't LDS women baptize? Because they don't hold the same priesthood that is available to the men so they don't have the same authority - the  type of administrative authority to perform certain ordinances.

Obviously I can't baptize in an LDS setting. Obviously, you can't baptize in a Baptist setting. Thus both our authorities (yours as an LDS priesthood holder) and mine as an ordained non-LDS minister are both limited. Marriage is an ordinance in our church that I can and have performed. I may be wrong, but I do not think an LDS priesthood holder has the authority from either the church or the state to perform  marriages. I believe stake presidents, bishops, and mission presidents can perform "authorized" civil marriages in the LDS community. To seal a couple requires sealing authority. That is a special authority, is it not? Absent sealing authority, a priesthood holder may not seal, correct? So there are levels of authority in all churches, including yours and mine. It is narrowly defined and limited by those in charge of such things in each group. Such authority extends only to the boundaries of each group and not beyond. It is very different than the royal priesthood talked about by Peter, where authority is not the principle attribute. I hope that helps clarify some things from my perspective. So often I think we are a people divided by a common language.

This may be something that will help you understand authority, in general.  Think about who gave you authority to "perform marriages", as you put it. That authority came from a secular government granting you the authority to do that. And just as you got your authority from a secular government, anyone can get that authority from that same secular government as long as they follow the procedures outlined by that secular government.  Whoever that secular government will give that authority to, as they outline in their procedures.  And those in authority in that secular government got or get their authority from others in that secular government who do as they are authorized to do.  So, yes, lay members of our church can get that authority from the secular government even if they are not bishops or stake presidents or mission presidents.  A member of our church doesn't need to be a bishop or stake president or mission president to get it.  Even women can get that authority from that secular government if the secular government will allow that.  All it takes to receive that secular authority is authorization from someone in that secular government who is authorized to grant that authority to someone else.  It is different than and independent of the authority of God.  It is secular authority, rather than the authority God gives to do his work.  And all secular authority is temporal, meaning it is only applicable to this mortal world governed by the laws of mankind, regardless of whether those men or women have any authority from God.  Whereas the priesthood of God is the authority of God given to do what God wants done and what God will recognize as valid in heaven as well as this mortal world.

Edited August 23, 2021 by bOObOO

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, bOObOO said:

This may be something that will help you understand authority, in general.  Think about who gave you authority to "perform marriages", as you put it. That authority came from a secular government granting you the authority to do that. And just as you got your authority from a secular government, anyone can get that authority from that same secular government as long as they follow the procedures outlined by that secular government.  Whoever that secular government will give that authority to, as they outline in their procedures.  And those in authority in that secular government got or get their authority from others in that secular government who do as they are authorized to do.  So, yes, lay members of our church can get that authority from the secular government even if they are not bishops or stake presidents or mission presidents.  A member of our church doesn't need to be a bishop or stake president or mission president to get it.  Even women can get that authority from that secular government if the secular government will allow that.  All it takes to receive that secular authority is authorization from someone in that secular government who is authorized to grant that authority to someone else.  It is different than and independent of the authority of God.  It is secular authority, rather than the authority God gives to do his work.  And all secular authority is temporal, meaning it is only applicable to this mortal world governed by the laws of mankind, regardless of whether those men or women have any authority from God.  Whereas the priesthood of God is the authority of God given to do what God wants done and what God will recognize as valid in heaven as well as this mortal world.

Hi! My authority to perform marriages or baptize folks in our churches comes from the leaders of the churches, not from the secular government. I may be a confusing example because currently I live in Mexico where all marriages are civil, not religious. Someone can follow up a civil ceremony with a church ceremony if they want, but that which is recognized by civil and legal authorities is that performed civilly. All LDS and Mennonite folks who get married here have a civil ceremony in order to inherit, etc.

I was speaking more to my time serving in churches in the United States. I could not perform a church wedding, baptize someone, or serve the sacrament absent the authority of my particular faith group. Certainly the governments of most states recognize marriages performed by an ordained minister, but one can only be ordained by a church. In the US, the government does not ordain you. The church ordains you and the government recognizes the church's right to do so and the person so ordained to marry people. The government recognizes your signature on a marriage certificate, but only with the assumption that your church has indeed authorized you to do so via ordination in one of their churches. I never heard of anyone performing a religious marriage ceremony absent the authority to do so from their group. Of course not all marriages are religious so others like judges, justices of the peace, or anyone with juridical authority can also perform a marriage ceremony that is not religious in its milieu. In my faith group we recognize five ordinances, each can be led by those with differing levels of authority. In each case, including marriage which is one of our five ordinances, the leaders of the church (local or higher) grant the appropriate authority for a leader to lead the ordinance. That authority stops at the church door and has no heavenly or eternal significance. Baptism is an ordinance in our church, but it does not carry eternal or salvific significance.

I believe I am correct that the LDS church has limited the performance of civil weddings in their chapels to stake presidents, mission presidents, and bishops. I believe that is correct, but of course I could be wrong. It certainly may be that one of those three may delegate their authority to someone else, a stake patriarch for example, but I am unsure about that.

Your last sentence is particularly interesting to me. I do whatever I do in the name of God via the authority granted me as a child of the King via the once for all sacrifice. I hold the royal priesthood of I Peter 2, therefore I have access to the Father without an earthly priest. I have authority to lead ordinances because that is granted me through my church leaders, under the direction of the Holy Spirit. I can assure you I live my life to do "what God wants done" through and by me in this mortal world and in the next. My authority for daring to do that is the atonement and my commitment to that. My prayer is that when God sees me, He sees His Son.

I know of no ordinances valid on earth (in this mortal life) and in eternity. Christ's death on the cross was and is the perfect (complete - telios) and final blood sacrifice (ordinance) that binds me to Him, both here and in eternity. What are you referring to when you speak of things God will recognize as valid in heaven as well as this mortal world? Perhaps the LDS church's sealings and endowments? Once again those are ordinances of your church, not mine.

You see, I have a foundational belief that I will go into eternity as an individual Christian. I will be judged as an individual, not as a member of any group or church. I am confident that Christ will have no interest in my Baptist ordination or Mennonite licensure when I stand before him. It is God's grace and my faith and faithfulness that he will measure me by. As I have said many times on this forum, I also believe in a wideness in God's mercy. God is not the God of only this group, or "only" of that group.

I also believe that certainty is a sin. So I am willing to be wrong. I am a person of faith as I have experienced it; not of certainty as others experience that. Thanks for engaging in helpful and considerate dialogue with me. I appreciate it.
 

[bOObOO]

10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi! My authority to perform marriages or baptize folks in our churches comes from the leaders of the churches, not from the secular government. I may be a confusing example because currently I live in Mexico where all marriages are civil, not religious. Someone can follow up a civil ceremony with a church ceremony if they want, but that which is recognized by civil and legal authorities is that performed civilly. All LDS and Mennonite folks who get married here have a civil ceremony in order to inherit, etc.

Correct me if I am wrong, I don't know much about Mexico's laws, but I think your authority to marry others, to perform marriage ceremonies, or more correctly stated to "officiate" in marriage ceremonies in Mexico comes from the secular government of Mexico, and that your church simply allows you or authorizes you to perform marriage ceremonies in Mexico in their church buildings.  Does that sound about right to you?   Do you believe your authority to officiate in marriage ceremonies in Mexico is independent of the authority you were given by Mexico?  Do you believe Mexico would honor the marriage ceremonies you officiate without the authority you were given by an official of Mexico who authorized you to perform or officiate in marriage ceremonies in Mexico?  Do you believe there is any added benefit to officiating in a marriage ceremony in Mexico by officiating in one of your church buildings?  Like how we believe when we officiate in the name of Jesus Christ, by the power of his priesthood, and the power of God, we are sealing a man and woman together forever as husband and wife, rather than only in a marriage that ends at death as that is all Mexico's officiates in secular government are authorized to do? 

 

10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I was speaking more to my time serving in churches in the United States. I could not perform a church wedding, baptize someone, or serve the sacrament absent the authority of my particular faith group. Certainly the governments of most states recognize marriages performed by an ordained minister, but one can only be ordained by a church.

Yes, I understand that.  Every organization has policies and procedures, whether religious in nature or not, and anyone can be ordained as a minister of a church by following a church's own policies and procedures. In our church, which we testify is the Lord's church, most young men are ordained to our Lord's ministry as early as 12 years old, so even a 12 year old could officiate in a wedding.  The most fundamental requirement imposed by most if not all states is a marriage license, and each state has its own policies and procedures regarding who may qualify and how to qualify for a marriage license.        

10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

In the US, the government does not ordain you. The church ordains you and the government recognizes the church's right to do so and the person so ordained to marry people.

I agree.

10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

The government recognizes your signature on a marriage certificate, but only with the assumption that your church has indeed authorized you to do so via ordination in one of their churches. I never heard of anyone performing a religious marriage ceremony absent the authority to do so from their group. Of course not all marriages are religious so others like judges, justices of the peace, or anyone with juridical authority can also perform a marriage ceremony that is not religious in its milieu. In my faith group we recognize five ordinances, each can be led by those with differing levels of authority. In each case, including marriage which is one of our five ordinances, the leaders of the church (local or higher) grant the appropriate authority for a leader to lead the ordinance. That authority stops at the church door and has no heavenly or eternal significance. Baptism is an ordinance in our church, but it does not carry eternal or salvific significance.

Yes, In America your church is free to establish its own policies and procedures, as are most other churches and organizations. I think we agree that not all churches are authorized by God or our Lord Jesus Christ to speak and act for them, though.  All churches may believe they teach correct principles and only that which is true, but if everyone was correct then Christianity would be nothing but a conflicted religion in chaos with everyone believing they are correct even with those conflicted teachings. 

10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I believe I am correct that the LDS church has limited the performance of civil weddings in their chapels to stake presidents, mission presidents, and bishops. I believe that is correct, but of course I could be wrong. It certainly may be that one of those three may delegate their authority to someone else, a stake patriarch for example, but I am unsure about that.

Do you mean you think our Church has a rule that only those called to those positions in the Church are authorized to apply to a state government office for authorization to officiate in a wedding?  If that is true, I have never heard if that is a rule.  Here is a link to what is required in the state where I live, Oregon.  Notice that all one has to do is list the name of the church of which one is ordained.  And yes each member of our church who is ordained as a minister does receive documentation of that ordination.    https://www.multco.us/recording/officiants-information

10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Your last sentence is particularly interesting to me. I do whatever I do in the name of God via the authority granted me as a child of the King via the once for all sacrifice. I hold the royal priesthood of I Peter 2, therefore I have access to the Father without an earthly priest. I have authority to lead ordinances because that is granted me through my church leaders, under the direction of the Holy Spirit. I can assure you I live my life to do "what God wants done" through and by me in this mortal world and in the next. My authority for daring to do that is the atonement and my commitment to that. My prayer is that when God sees me, He sees His Son.

I realize you believe that what you believe is true.  This is only a discussion about our beliefs regarding how authority from God is obtained.  If I understand you correctly, you believe God somehow gave you his authority, or some of his authority.  Where and how did you get that idea?  From God, directly, or from some other man or men who you believe were speaking for God when they said anyone who believed they had God's authority had it by believing they did?  Or if not that, what?  and how?

10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I know of no ordinances valid on earth (in this mortal life) and in eternity.

I do.  Would you like me to tell you and who told me?

10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

What are you referring to when you speak of things God will recognize as valid in heaven as well as this mortal world? Perhaps the LDS church's sealings and endowments? Once again those are ordinances of your church, not mine.

They are ordinances our Lord has approved and will reward with particular blessings.  Maybe instead of identifying which Church authorizes those ordinances you should ask the L:ord if he has authorized them, getting revelation from him directly. 

10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You see, I have a foundational belief that I will go into eternity as an individual Christian. I will be judged as an individual, not as a member of any group or church. I am confident that Christ will have no interest in my Baptist ordination or Mennonite licensure when I stand before him. It is God's grace and my faith and faithfulness that he will measure me by. As I have said many times on this forum, I also believe in a wideness in God's mercy. God is not the God of only this group, or "only" of that group.

I also believe that certainty is a sin. So I am willing to be wrong. I am a person of faith as I have experienced it; not of certainty as others experience that. Thanks for engaging in helpful and considerate dialogue with me. I appreciate it.
 

Okay.  You'll find out for yourself how far your beliefs will take you, just as I will also find out for myself when our Lord judges me.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Why can't LDS women baptize? Because they don't hold the same priesthood that is available to the men so they don't have the same authority - the  type of administrative authority to perform certain ordinances.

This is the kind of simple and well known Doctrine you are not learning about. Not your fault.

All priesthood authority and keys for callings is delegated, for both men AND women, both are  " set apart" with hands on their heads before they start a new calling.

Women perform ordinances in the temple and are referred to as "officiators", the same as men. They have delegated priesthood authority for their callings, just as men do, throughout the whole spectrum of their callings in the Relief Society,  and dealing with youth and various other presidencies.

They fill callings which men are not allowed to fill.

And yes,I have performed many civil marriages 

 

Edited August 24, 2021 by mfbukowski

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But read Joe Spencer 's take on this, on Isaiah and Nephi.  He is a VERY smart dude. I am just getting into it.

And trust me, he knows about D.I. More than anyone else, possibly.

Read up on it, I am just getting started.

Well you didn’t provide a link, so unfortunately I did some googling. Didn’t find his work, but the Interpreter  actually has two scathing reviews of his Isaiah stuff. Seems odd that if he proved the Book of Mormon true, he can’t even convince the folks over at the Interpreter. 

Edited August 24, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Kuhn points out that one of the most important criteria for paradigm choice is "puzzle definition and solution."  Puzzle dismissal without bothering with detailed solution is not at all the same thing.

Could not agree more. After years and years of struggling with the seed of Mormonism, I thought I was making it work. Sure I had a stacked shelf, a ton of horrible cognitive habits. What a relief it was to put that mental burden down with a paradigm shift to naturalism. Suddenly the world made sense. I get that your experience differs, but it seems the ultimate in arrogance to assume dismissal without bothering on the part of another. 

[Ipod Touch]

I've never understood the compulsion to create a narrative around how the BoM was created.

The Book stands or falls on its own claims.  And I think there is more than enough information in the Book itself to conclude it is a product of the 19th century.  

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Well you didn’t provide a link, so unfortunately I did some googling. Didn’t find his work, but the Interpreter  actually has two scathing reviews of his Isaiah stuff. Seems odd that if he proved the Book of Mormon true, he can’t even convince the folks over at the Interpreter. 

Golly gee, you didn't provide a link either, and I couldn't because it was a lecture series that ended 2 days ago. At least I have an excuse.

[Ipod Touch]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Who actually dictated the BOM to Joseph?

Was the BOM dictated to Joseph? My understanding is that he read characters off of the plates. Or perhaps he read an english representation of the plate characters.

Are there any claims that the BoM was dictated to JS?  The historical record seems to indicate that JS dictate the BoM based on the revelation he received via the seer stone.

[Navidad]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is the kind of simple and well known Doctrine you are not learning about. Not your fault.

All priesthood authority and keys for callings is delegated, for both men AND women, both are  " set apart" with hands on their heads before they start a new calling.

Women perform ordinances in the temple and are referred to as "officiators", the same as men. They have delegated priesthood authority for their callings, just as men do, throughout the whole spectrum of their callings in the Relief Society,  and dealing with youth and various other presidencies.

They fill callings which men are not allowed to fill.

And yes,I have performed many civil marriages 

 

I understand and am aware of all that is in your reply about what you deem as priesthood authority, keys, and callings. The key word in your response is "delegated." All churches (denominations, groups) that I know of provide for certain delegated administrative authority - being "set apart" for various leadership positions. Here is my source for my statement about civil marriage. Obviously you know much better than me whether it is accurate.      https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2021-06-30/first-presidency-new-guidelines-church-leaders-perform-civil-marriages-218261. It appears that perhaps the rules changed several months ago. What I don't know for sure is whether or not marriage performed other than in the temple (not sealing) is considered an ordinance in the LDS church? I would not perform a civil marriage even if I were legally allowed to do so. Outside of a sacramental meaning and context, I would respectfully decline to marry someone by a personal choice. My "authority" to perform marriages may be both ecclesiastical and civil. I would personally limit that choice to an ecclesiastical context.

[Peacefully]

On 8/17/2021 at 10:48 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

The Book of Mormon clearly lays out the relationship of the Book of Mormon to the Bible.  It is rooted in the period just before the exile, begining in the reign of Zedekiah (1 Nephi 1:4), who was put in power by the Babylonians, after ousting another son of Josiah, Jehoiakim, who had been installed by the Egyptians.   I personally think that the Brass plates (see 1 Nephi 5:10-22) which are a source mentioned in and used by the Book of Mormon authors, (but which is not the Book of Mormon itself) were done as a project for Pharoh, (very much akin to the later Septuagint, comissioned by Ptolomy, Pharoh when the international language was Greek), as a compilation of important writings translated into Egyptian as a both a gift to Egypt, a contribution to the royal library and a resource for training bureaucrats.  With the defeat of the Egyptians, the project was interrupted, and Lehi was given instructions to obtain them.

The Book of Mormon shows signs of reflecting the E source, the Northern tradition. 

https://members.tripod.com/~osher_2/StickJoseph.html

It quotes many Old Testament passages, notably Isaiah, but others are included.  Jeremiah is mentioned as a contemporary of Lehi.

But Jeremiah would not quote the Book of Mormon because the authors of the Book of Mormon did their writing after they left Jerusalem.  Nephi did his autobiographical writing after the trip to the New World.  They had the Brass plates as a resource, which contained much of the Old Testament as we have it, and also some things which are not in the Old Testament.  And the main editors and compilers, Mormon and his son Moroni, did their work after New Testament times.  Both Mormon and Moroni reported personal encounters with the resurrected Jesus, so, they were not completely isolated from New Testament ideas, if we accept that Jesus is the source of many New Testament ideas.

And Joseph Smith as translator was not isolated from the King James Bible, the single most influential book in the English language.  Drawing on that language was natural, and a help to the reader to help them recognize what they were reading.  Joseph was not participating in a "double-blind" study.  David Wright once complained that Joseph could have offered an independent translation of Isaiah passages.  His argument rests on the authority granted by the assumption that a feeling that "It's not the way I would have done things if I were God" automatically guarentees that, "therefore, God had nothing to do with it." One flaw in the logic is assuming that God's ways are our ways.   Another is that there is no outside evidence supporting the assumption.  Has Wright demonstrated from any evidence whatsoever exactly how God would have done it?  Plus, Thomas Wayment pointed out that Alma 7:11 offers a more literal translation from the Hebrew of Isaiah 53:4 than does the KJV, and more  literal than the Isaiah 53:4 quotation in Mosiah 14:4, perhaps in that instance, because the translator did not recognize Alma 7:11 as an Isaiah quotation.  

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol14/iss1/10/ 

Rigdon to his death bed insisted that he never saw the Book of Mormon until Parley P. Pratt provided him with a printed copy in Kirtland.   The Rigdon theory of authorship arose out of the inability of Joseph's neighbors to account for Joseph Smith being able to come up with something as complex and as infuential as the Book of Mormon. For an important discussion of the kind of book his Palmyra neighbors expected, see John Gee's discussion of the parody Book of Pukei in his essay, "The Wrong Type of Book."

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi/27/

Among other notable observations, Gee notes that the Book of Pukei, Spaulding's Manuscript Found, and even View of the Hebrews all show the influence of the cultural heritage of the Roman Empire, including, imitating the Latin style.  The Book of Mormon does not.   Henry Lake, one of those claiming to have read in Spaulding's unpublished romance, "the frequent use of "It came to pass..." runs into the obstacle that Spaulding's manuscript never uses the phrase "it came to pass."  We can conclude that Lake lied.

The Book of Mormon was not translated into English in cultural isolation from the Bible.  But there is no evidence that a Bible was ever consulted, except in the instance where Joseph questioned the existence of walls around Jerusalem, and a Bible was then consulted to demonstrate this to Joseph Smith.

I have closely studied several attempts to explain the Book of Mormon as a product of Joseph Smith's imagination plus the environment, the "sponge theory."   For example, see 

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/author/Christensen, Kevin

I grant that Joseph's Imagination + Environment is the simplist theory, but the problem is that in comparing theories, we need to ask, "Which is better?" and in measuring better, we ought to employ criteria that are not completely paradigm-dependent.  According to Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the most important criteria for paradigm choice that are not paradigm depdent are:

testability (puzzle definition and solution)

accuracy of key predictions

comprehensiveness and coherence,

fruitfulness (that is, the kinds of details that an inside view detects that an outside view completely overlooks)

simplicity and aethetics

future promise

And over and over again, I have been able to show that against these criteria, sponge theory explanations always fall short.  In practice, those who offer them tend to avoid putting themselves at risk by actually comparing their findings with the findings of the defenders.   For instance, regarding Ann Taves recent attempt, I could say this:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/playing-to-an-audience-a-review-of-revelatory-events/

Now as to the relationship between the Bible as we have it and the Book of Mormon, I recommend comparing this essay by Margaret Barker on the transmission of the Hebrew Bible, and what we learn about it from both the state of the text we have, and other ancient texts:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TextAndContext.pdf

Read that, and then compare 1 Nephi 13:19-42.   There is something to ponder, I think.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

 

Thank you for always laying things out in a scholarly, yet understandable way. I always appreciate your contribution to these discussions. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Golly gee, you didn't provide a link either, and I couldn't because it was a lecture series that ended 2 days ago. At least I have an excuse.

Well you told me to “read up on it” and I was just reporting what I found. But since you asked:

 

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/on-doubting-nephis-break-between-1-and-2-nephi-a-critique-of-joseph-spencers-an-other-testament-on-typology/
 

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/nephis-obsession-or-how-to-talk-with-nephi-about-god/

Edited August 24, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Kevin Christensen]

6 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Thank you for always laying things out in a scholarly, yet understandable way. I always appreciate your contribution to these discussions. 

You are most welcome.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Nevo]

I've now spent over 25 years sorting through arguments for and against the Book of Mormon. It remains a puzzle to me. Whatever its origin, I consider it a marvelous work and a wonder. I think it holds up well as scripture. There is power and beauty in it. I’ve seen it bring people to Christ and change lives. It is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). I believe it contains truth to live by. Yet I don't believe that it's historical.

I accept the arguments for the book's narrative and literary complexity. As Grant Hardy has written, "Not only are there more than a thousand years of history involving some two hundred named individuals and nearly a hundred distinct places, but the narrative itself is presented as the work of three primary editor/historians. . . . These figures, in turn, claim to have based their accounts on dozens of preexisting records. The result is a complex mix that incorporates multiple genres ranging from straightforward narration to inserted sermons and letters to scriptural commentary and poetry. It requires considerable patience to work out all the details of chronology, geography, genealogy, and source records, but the Book of Mormon is remarkably consistent on all this. The chronology is handled virtually without glitches, despite several flashbacks and temporally overlapping narratives; . . . and the narrators keep straight both the order and family connections among the twenty-six Nephite record keepers and forty-one Jaredite kings (including rival lines). The complexity is such that one would assume the author worked from charts and maps" (Understanding the Book of Mormon, 6–7). Then there are the chiastic structures, the seemingly carefully constructed intertextual allusions, and so on. All of which seems to point away from Joseph Smith as author.

But his subsequent prophetic career and scriptural productions show that Joseph Smith was not your average unlettered rustic. He continued to create scripture, freely revising and expanding biblical narratives. He continued to dictate lengthy revelations with coherent themes and seamlessly interwoven biblical allusions. He presented himself, and wrote himself into scripture, as a great seer, one who could “know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come,” who could, through his faith, “work mighty miracles [and therefore become] a great benefit to his fellow beings” (Mosiah 8:17–18).

Joseph Smith presented the Book of Mormon to the world as a miraculous translation of an ancient American record. Perhaps he believed that. Samuel Brown suggests that Joseph Smith may have experienced the translation of the Book of Mormon as a series of panoramic visions, and that he may have begun having such visions as early as 1823. I find Brown's arguments persuasive, and think Joseph believed he was translating an ancient record, speaking in the voice of ancient prophets and seeing what they saw.

Hyrum Smith wrote a letter to his grandfather during the translation of the Book of Mormon in which he said that, if he was deceived [about the Book of Mormon], then God was his deceiver. I can't help but feel this way myself. If the Book of Mormon is a fraud, then I believe it's an inspired one. I can't make sense of it as history but it speaks to me as scripture.

[bOObOO]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

I understand and am aware of all that is in your reply about what you deem as priesthood authority, keys, and callings. The key word in your response is "delegated." All churches (denominations, groups) that I know of provide for certain delegated administrative authority - being "set apart" for various leadership positions. Here is my source for my statement about civil marriage. Obviously you know much better than me whether it is accurate.      https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2021-06-30/first-presidency-new-guidelines-church-leaders-perform-civil-marriages-218261. It appears that perhaps the rules changed several months ago. What I don't know for sure is whether or not marriage performed other than in the temple (not sealing) is considered an ordinance in the LDS church?

I suppose that depends on what is meant by the word ordinance.  Different people have different ideas.  Usually when we refer to an ordinance we are referring to an ordinance of the gospel, something we do because the Lord has ordained that we should do it while telling us how we should do it so that if and when we do it we are doing it in the Lord's way.  This may help you to understand a little better:  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1998/06/marriage-in-the-lords-way-part-one?lang=eng    

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

I would not perform a civil marriage even if I were legally allowed to do so. Outside of a sacramental meaning and context, I would respectfully decline to marry someone by a personal choice. My "authority" to perform marriages may be both ecclesiastical and civil. I would personally limit that choice to an ecclesiastical context.

Are you referring to a marriage performed/officiated in a church building?  Do you believe the marriage bond itself is any different when performed/officiated in a church building than it would be if the couple was bonded in some other place?  What makes a marriage peformed/officiated in a church building ecclesiastical, other than it being authorized by leaders of a church to be performed/officiated in a church building?  Do your ecclesiastical leaders have any additional authority to perform/officiate in a marriage ceremony other than the authority they were granted by a secular government official?  Do you understand that we believe we do?

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, Navidad said:

I know of no ordinances valid on earth (in this mortal life) and in eternity. Christ's death on the cross was and is the perfect (complete - telios) and final blood sacrifice (ordinance) that binds me to Him, both here and in eternity. What are you referring to when you speak of things God will recognize as valid in heaven as well as this mortal world?

 Matthew 16:19  "And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

 Matthew 18:18: "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Incidentally as I recall these scriptural quotes are seen in Catholicism as the main statements justifying the notion of priesthood authority.  This seems to be the crux of the issue- and it appears that Protestants simply ignore these quotes?   What am I getting wrong?

These quotes also are, iirc, the basis for prohibiting divorce but yet acknowledging the legitimacy of "annulment " in Catholicism.

Edited August 24, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

I understand and am aware of all that is in your reply about what you deem as priesthood authority, keys, and callings. The key word in your response is "delegated." All churches (denominations, groups) that I know of provide for certain delegated administrative authority - being "set apart" for various leadership positions. Here is my source for my statement about civil marriage. Obviously you know much better than me whether it is accurate.      https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2021-06-30/first-presidency-new-guidelines-church-leaders-perform-civil-marriages-218261.

These "new" guidelines to me are not "new" at all, but have been part of the "unwritten rules" of out-of-temple marriages forever, for all I know.  I certainly would have never done any of the "newly prohibited" practices simply out of a sense of what is church culture and what is not.

Regarding geography- we live about 10 miles from the Pacific, and in the olden days of perhaps around 2010, I performed a wedding on the beach for two members of my ward.   I got those requests on a regular basis.

A few years later, the practice changed to a policy that outside the geographic boundaries of the ward, a bishop was no longer a bishop, he was only a bishop within the ward boundaries, and since the beach was outside our ward boundaries, we had to change the location of the wedding to a more local but just as beautiful, location, a park within the boundaries.

Ward names are also being changed to reflect local geography- they used to be a more general geographic designation like "The Provo 4th ward" but now the local designation will be more precise, usually based on a street name or some other very local feature.   For example if the ward building is on Washington Blvd in Anytown USA, the ward name might be the Anytown Washington Ward.  In our stake all the wards are named after the street on which they are located.

 

 

 

Edited August 24, 2021 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

49 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

they used to be a more general geographic designation like "The Provo 4th ward" but now the local designation will be more precise, usually based on a street name or some other very local feature.

Here in Draper Utah, we are still old-school - Draper 1st, 2nd, 3rd ward, etc.  

51 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

In our stake all the wards are named after the street on which they are located.

Naming wards after streets in Utah would not be the best idea with our grid system - it is convenient for finding addresses, but you wouldn't want to name a ward after it.  The Sandy 1300 East ward is just ugly, not to mention that there are probably 3 other wards on that same street.  Ha! 

[bOObOO]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

These "new" guidelines to me are not "new" at all, but have been part of the "unwritten rules" of out-of-temple marriages forever, for all I know.  I certainly would have never done any of the "newly prohibited" practices simply out of a sense of what is church culture and what is not.

Regarding geography- we live about 10 miles from the Pacific, and in the olden days of perhaps around 2010, I performed a wedding on the beach for two members of my ward.   I got those requests on a regular basis.

A few years later, the practice changed to a policy that outside the geographic boundaries of the ward, a bishop was no longer a bishop, he was only a bishop within the ward boundaries, and since the beach was outside our ward boundaries, we had to change the location of the wedding to a more local but just as beautiful, location, a park within the boundaries.

Ward names are also being changed to reflect local geography- they used to be a more general geographic designation like "The Provo 4th ward" but now the local designation will be more precise, usually based on a street name or some other very local feature.   For example if the ward building is on Washington Blvd in Anytown USA, the ward name might be the Anytown Washington Ward.  In our stake all the wards are named after the street on which they are located.

That is an unusual use of the English language.  A man who is ordained as a bishop remains a bishop for as long as he retains that ordination, even though he won't always serve a particular ward as the acting bishop of that ward.  He will retain his ordination even when released from active service in that office to which he has been ordained.  We refer to that as releasing him from that service, while he still retains the priesthood office of a bishop.  And anytime any bishop actively serves in his office as bishop his jurisdiction is limited to only the ward (a geographic area) in which he has been called to service as the bishop of that ward.  He is not the bishop of any other ward while serving in that calling as a bishop.  He serves in only one ward at a time and his jurisdiction is always limited to only one ward.  So anytime any bishop leaves the ward in which he has jurisdiction he is leaving the area where he has jurisdiction as the bishop of that ward.

FYI for anyone out there who may wonder how authority in our Church is delegated by jurisdiction.

Edited August 24, 2021 by bOObOO