Key to the Keystone

[Nofear]

 I've reading the Key to the Keystone by Jonah Barnes (https://plainandpreciouspublishing.com/products/preorder-the-key-to-the-keystone-how-apocryphal-texts-unlock-the-book-of-mormons-brass-plates). While not an academic book as such (he is way too snarky for that) I've personally found the book quite insightful. Still working on finishing it. Among some points:

• the number of things The Book of Mormon gets right from a historical context of Lehi leaving Jerusalem is incredible
• just how much the Josiah reforms messed up much of the Old Testament
• how the Book of Mormon's pre-Christ Christian theology seems to be the norm and not the anomaly (the Old Testament is the anomaly)

Anybody else read/reading this book? What are your thoughts?

 

[Dario_M]

I've never read this book. And i don't think i'm going to read it anyway. I have allready read the whole book of Mormon. And that was a lot. What is so special about the Key to the Keystone if i may be so free to ask? 📚

Edited November 13, 2024 by Dario_M

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, Dario_M said:

I've never read this book. And i don't think i'm going to read it anyway. I have already read the whole book of Mormon. And that was a lot. What is so special about the Key to the Keystone if i may be so free to ask? 📚

It's in many ways more about understanding the Old Testament. The presumption of the author is that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient record. It is part of our theology that other sacred texts will be revealed. The author's opinion is that some of these additional texts have been revealed. Not discovered and translated like the Book of Mormon was, but records that were discarded by the Jews and Christians alike and just ignored or secreted away, or in some cases, literally tossed in the trash. That's not to say everything thing in those texts is great. There is a lot of crazy in them too.

There is no claim of new or additional doctrine beyond the Book of Mormon. Though, there was one insight that was present in the apocryphal texts that was new to me. Lucifer vied for the position of Adam and said that he should get that position because he was senior to the angel assigned the role of Adam. And it was that rejection that got Lucifer really torqued off ad led him to propose the alternate plan we see in the Book of Moses.

Again, though, the real value in the book is the dismissal of the argument that the Book of Mormon is clearly a post-Christian fabrication because there is nothing like the blatant messianic language is used in the Old Testament. Turns out, explicit messianic language is in the old records just as the Book of Mormon says there is. Plain and precious things were very much removed from the Bible -- much more so than we LDS are wont to think.

[Dario_M]

23 minutes ago, Nofear said:

It's in many ways more about understanding the Old Testament. The presumption of the author is that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient record. It is part of our theology that other sacred texts will be revealed. The author's opinion is that some of these additional texts have been revealed. Not discovered and translated like the Book of Mormon was, but records that were discarded by the Jews and Christians alike and just ignored or secreted away, or in some cases, literally tossed in the trash. That's not to say everything thing in those texts is great. There is a lot of crazy in them too.

Yeah but we are from the LDS community. We have the book of mormon. Is that not allready enough? So many documents and things have been lost in history. That's just part of it. Not everything can be saved.

God forbid. 

23 minutes ago, Nofear said:

There is no claim of new or additional doctrine beyond the Book of Mormon. Though, there was one insight that was present in the apocryphal texts that was new to me. Lucifer vied for the position of Adam and said that he should get that position because he was senior to the angel assigned the role of Adam. And it was that rejection that got Lucifer really torqued off ad led him to propose the alternate plan we see in the Book of Moses.

Luficer is just a big skunk. He wanted to be greater and more powerfull then God himself. He wanted to rule the world. But God is by far greater then the devil. That Lucifer can't be greater then God is why he has became so evil and dark. He is jealous. And those jealous feelings make him such a great sinner. 

23 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Again, though, the real value in the book is the dismissal of the argument that the Book of Mormon is clearly a post-Christian fabrication because there is nothing like the blatant messianic language is used in the Old Testament.

I rather read from the book of mormon then from the old testament. The book of mormon is just another new testament. 

23 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Turns out, explicit messianic language is in the old records just as the Book of Mormon says there is. Plain and precious things were very much removed from the Bible -- much more so than we LDS are wont to think.

I'm not sure about that though. The most important stuff for us Saints is to know the book of mormon. 

[Nofear]

5 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Yeah but we are from the LDS community. We have the book of mormon. Is that not allready enough?

Well the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon is there for us when we as a people are ready for more. So, frankly, no, not quite.

The book isn't replacing the Book of Mormon, far from it. Read it, not read it. Whatever floats your boat. Will it add a modicum of depth to one's understanding of the context of the Book of Mormon? I think so. Still it remans that, a Book of Mormon, a Book of Mormon, we have no need of another Book of Mormon.

[manol]

4 hours ago, Nofear said:

Still it remans that, a Book of Mormon, a Book of Mormon, we have no need of another Book of Mormon.

Have you ever thought about how you would recognize new scripture if you came across it? 

[Zosimus]

I'm about half way through it, and have enjoyed it so far. Although I do think he's reading more Mormonism into some of his interpretations then is really there. For example, your comment below I assume comes from Barnes somewhere, because I've also seen a similar comment in the Key to the Keystone discord server

12 hours ago, Nofear said:

Lucifer vied for the position of Adam and said that he should get that position because he was senior to the angel assigned the role of Adam. And it was that rejection that got Lucifer really torqued off ad led him to propose the alternate plan we see in the Book of Moses.

But I don't see any of the apocryphal texts saying that Satan was gunning for Adam's position as the first man in the garden. The texts I've read only say that Satan refused to bow down to Adam because Satan was created before Adam. I don't find anything that says Satan wanted Adam's role or position. Its difficult to pull that out of the texts because I don't think the authors saw "Adam" as a title, role or position like speculative Mormonism seems to do. But I could have missed a reference somewhere

[Dario_M]

7 hours ago, Nofear said:

Well the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon is there for us when we as a people are ready for more. So, frankly, no, not quite.

Plus if the book of mormon doesn't satisfy you enough you can also read the bible new and old testament. That's a lot. For me the book of mormon is enough. It's a thick book. For me it's more then enough. So...because i've read the whole book of mormon i don't feel like i wanna read the bible as well, both the new as the old testament. 

7 hours ago, Nofear said:

The book isn't replacing the Book of Mormon, far from it. Read it, not read it. Whatever floats your boat.

Hmmm i think i pass. But are you saying that the book of mormon is not compleet enough?

7 hours ago, Nofear said:

Will it add a modicum of depth to one's understanding of the context of the Book of Mormon? I think so. Still it remans that, a Book of Mormon, a Book of Mormon, we have no need of another Book of Mormon.

Have you actually read the whole book of mormon if i may be so free to ask? 

[Nofear]

15 hours ago, Zosimus said:

I'm about half way through it, and have enjoyed it so far. Although I do think he's reading more Mormonism into some of his interpretations then is really there. For example, your comment below I assume comes from Barnes somewhere, because I've also seen a similar comment in the Key to the Keystone discord server

But I don't see any of the apocryphal texts saying that Satan was gunning for Adam's position as the first man in the garden. The texts I've read only say that Satan refused to bow down to Adam because Satan was created before Adam. I don't find anything that says Satan wanted Adam's role or position. Its difficult to pull that out of the texts because I don't think the authors saw "Adam" as a title, role or position like speculative Mormonism seems to do. But I could have missed a reference somewhere

I suppose that is my interpretation. I'll have to go recheck the sources and I may have unduly extrapolated.

[Nofear]

14 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Have you actually read the whole book of mormon if i may be so free to ask? 

Yes. Many times. I am a thorough and quite orthodox believer.

18 hours ago, manol said:

Have you ever thought about how you would recognize new scripture if you came across it? 

The Revelators of the Church would present them as such. Part of their job description. That doesn't mean there aren't plenty of true and insightful things that one can learn elsewhere. We then measure them against our canon to see if they are consistent.

 

PS: To be fair, I really don't plan on diving into apocryphal texts anytime soon. I'll let those that are more interested (e.g. Jonah Barnes, but there are others) glean some nice gems from them and share it with the rest of us.

Edited November 14, 2024 by Nofear

[manol]

30 minutes ago, Nofear said:

The Revelators of the Church would present them as such. Part of their job description. That doesn't mean there aren't plenty of true and insightful things that one can learn elsewhere. We then measure them against our canon to see if they are consistent.

Thanks for responding.

When I was a missionary I used to wonder whether I would be as open-minded as I expected my investigators to be.  Would I have let someone like me in and seriously listened to their message?   I hope so. 

More along the lines of your response, if someone who has earned my trust in this area told me to pay attention to a new source of information, I would do so.  

That being said, "new wine" doesn't always fit into old paradigms, so ime that which the Holy Spirit bears witness to may shift one's interpretation of canon.

[Mfbnew]

17 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Plus if the book of mormon doesn't satisfy you enough you can also read the bible new and old testament. That's a lot. For me the book of mormon is enough. It's a thick book. For me it's more then enough. So...because i've read the whole book of mormon i don't feel like i wanna read the bible as well, both the new as the old testament. 

If you can read 7 pages a day - you can read the Old Testament, New Testament, Doc and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price in just one year!!

Just add up all the number of pages in each, then divide by 365, and as I recall, your conclusion will be 7.

When I first joined the church about 45 years ago, I started doing that- did the whole think a couple of times- and as far as I remember, 7 was the number!   I am too lazy to do it all now, but check it out!!  🙂

The good part about it is that it gives you a concrete goal, that CAN be done!  How long does it take to read 7 pages??  You have to see it in terms of daily reading instead of seeing the mountain- and it becomes possible!

 

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, manol said:

 

More along the lines of your response, if someone who has earned my trust in this area told me to pay attention to a new source of information, I would do so.

Joseph Smith did quite recommend the Book of Jasher. Elder Russell M. Nelson openly quoted the Book of Abbaton in General Conference. Necessary? No. Calculus isn't necessary either, but I do struggle to imagine a world where I don't understand it. To me that would be horrible.

[Dario_M]

9 hours ago, Nofear said:

Yes. Many times. I am a thorough and quite orthodox believer.

Oh okay you're not from the LDS community? Not that it matters anyway. 

9 hours ago, Nofear said:

The Revelators of the Church would present them as such. Part of their job description. That doesn't mean there aren't plenty of true and insightful things that one can learn elsewhere. We then measure them against our canon to see if they are consistent.

I never said that. Offcourse you can find insightful things everywhere. Even in a children's book. 🤷‍♀️  In my previous post i was speaking from myself. And for me the book of mormon is enough you see. 

9 hours ago, Nofear said:

PS: To be fair, I really don't plan on diving into apocryphal texts anytime soon. I'll let those that are more interested (e.g. Jonah Barnes, but there are others) glean some nice gems from them and share it with the rest of us.

You do you. 😌👍

Edited November 15, 2024 by Dario_M

[Dario_M]

6 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

If you can read 7 pages a day - you can read the Old Testament, New Testament, Doc and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price in just one year!!

Just add up all the number of pages in each, then divide by 365, and as I recall, your conclusion will be 7.

When I first joined the church about 45 years ago, I started doing that- did the whole think a couple of times- and as far as I remember, 7 was the number!   I am too lazy to do it all now, but check it out!!  🙂

The good part about it is that it gives you a concrete goal, that CAN be done!  How long does it take to read 7 pages??  You have to see it in terms of daily reading instead of seeing the mountain- and it becomes possible!

 

Amen to that. Oh my...you're so right. I've read the book of mormon in one month. I wanted to upvote your post btw, i forgot that i can't do that anymore. ⬆️

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

okay you're not from the LDS community? Not that it matters anyway. 

No, he means an orthodox Latter-day Saint. 

[Dario_M]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, he means an orthodox Latter-day Saint. 

Oh really? What is the differends between a normal Saint and an orthodox Saint? 

I thought that the LDS community was always the same. 

Edited November 15, 2024 by Dario_M

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Oh really? What is the differends between a normal Saint and an orthodox Saint? 

I thought that the LDS community was always the same. 

Orthodox mean more traditional, right believing…it’s typically gets interpreted as strongly committed to the faith and its doctrine

If it is a capital Orthodox, it means the religion  

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/orthodox

conforming to established doctrine especially in religion

orthodox principles

 

the orthodox interpretation

 

b

: CONVENTIONAL

took an orthodox approach to the problem

 

orthodox medicine

Edited November 15, 2024 by Calm

[Dario_M]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Orthodox mean more traditional, right believing…it’s typically gets interpreted as strongly committed to the faith and its doctrine

But does that not caunt for every Saint? Most LDS are committed to the faith and it's doctrines. 

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

If it is a capital Orthodox, it means the religion  

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/orthodox

Interesting.

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

conforming to established doctrine especially in religion

orthodox principles

 

the orthodox interpretation

 

b

: CONVENTIONAL

took an orthodox approach to the problem

 

orthodox medicine

Woow. Really interesting to know. 🌈

[Nofear]

It's ok Calm. I've largely chosen to never respond to Dario_M. He comes across to me as the kind of Latter-day Saint that [in the context of apologetics] embodies the phrase, "With friends like these, who needs enemies?"

 If our prophets from Joseph Smith to Russell M. Nelson can find insight in the apocryphal texts, well, I suppose maybe there is something there for me too, even if my approach would be casual at best. For me, the most interesting thing I learned what just how bad the Old Testament got lobotomized by the Deuteronomists. We speak of plain and precious things being lost from the Bible, but pointing those out with specificity can be problematic for most of us. Thanks to the book, I can be specific and not just general. In the past I've reasoned that maybe King Josiah had some need for his reformations and that, while a bit over-zealous, perhaps he did some good and necessary things. I was probably too generous in my presumption.

[manol]

15 hours ago, Dario_M said:

I never said that. Of course you can find insightful things everywhere. Even in a children's book. 🤷‍♀️  In my previous post i was speaking from myself. And for me the book of mormon is enough you see.

I think Nofear was responding to my post.

 

9 hours ago, Nofear said:

I've largely chosen to never respond to Dario_M. He comes across to me as the kind of Latter-day Saint that [in the context of apologetics] embodies the phrase, "With friends like these, who needs enemies?"

Dario sometimes misunderstands this or that (like he misunderstood your use of the word "orthodox"), and hasn't been a member for long enough to be adept at apologetics, but he is a brother in Christ and he has a good heart.  I hope you see him through an inclusive lens.

9 hours ago, Nofear said:

If our prophets from Joseph Smith to Russell M. Nelson can find insight in the apocryphal texts, well, I suppose maybe there is something there for me too, even if my approach would be casual at best...

Imo one of the most interesting passages in the LDS canon is this:

"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." [emphasis mine]

What do you think God does now reveal? 

Is it or could it be "great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God"?

And, how might we find it? 

Edited November 15, 2024 by manol

[Dario_M]

19 minutes ago, manol said:

I think Nofear was responding to my post.

Oh my. You're right indeed. How did i have seen that wrong? What a mistake i have made didn't i? God forbid. 

19 minutes ago, manol said:

Dario sometimes misunderstands this or that, and hasn't been a member for long enough to be adept at apologetics, but he is a brother in Christ and he has a good heart.  I hope you see him through an inclusive lens.

Aaawh thank you.🩵 You're right. Those 2 years i have been in the church are not much. I didn't had that much time to learn. 

19 minutes ago, manol said:

Imo one of the most interesting passages in the LDS canon is this:

"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." [emphasis mine]

What do you think God does now reveal? 

Is it or could it be "great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God"?

And, how might we find it? 

Amen. 👏🙏🩵

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, manol said:

Dario sometimes misunderstands this or that (like he misunderstood your use of the word "orthodox"), and hasn't been a member for long enough to be adept at apologetics, but he is a brother in Christ and he has a good heart.  I hope you see him through an inclusive lens.

It is indeed good to be charitable and non-judgmental. I accept your recommendation.

[JVW]

1 minute ago, Nofear said:

It is indeed good to be charitable and non-judgmental. I accept your recommendation.

On the other hand, it takes all kinds. Some people are my type of people, and others aren't. But the people I don't jive with still have best friends and others that jive with them and I don't need to be friends with everyone. I'm glad people that aren't my type exist, and that there are other people who aren't my type that get along with those people. But I'm also glad I don't have to be friends with any of them. Clear as mud? Hehe.

[manol]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

On the other hand, it takes all kinds...

Yes it does! 

"The kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind."

Edited November 15, 2024 by manol