Key to the Keystone

[Mfbnew]

17 hours ago, Nofear said:

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 wouldthibe 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.

Disagree big time with your comments on Dario!

He is a newbie to the church and has a life very different from those born and raised in the USA- and to me your assessment is extremely parochial.

Utah strikes again.   Cracks me up.  Last sacrament meeting we had some visitors from Utah here in California, and they spoke on how "well we are doing here in the mission field".   Oh thank you wonderful infallible Utahns!

The problem is with those who take every word literally and can't see the forest for the trees. Is King Josiah an actual person who did or did not actually exist?

It doesn't matter.   So one can have a belief that he was "real" without having a definition of the word, and not see how the word FUNCTIONS - even as a parable.  And what do we learn from any Biblical story ? It doesn't matter for purposes of historicity - do one have faith in story because "it really happened"- or does our faith find value in the principles which are there to be learned, to improve one's life?   Jesus taught - as I recall- over 20 parables found in the New Testament- and the Book of Mormon could be 100% parables without losing its value!  Who cares?  The US constitution for example says that "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness " .... but where does that just "really happen"?  World wide?  In the Roman Empire?  Has Christianity maybe changed society just a little based on scriptures?

No, it is an example of how things OUGHT to be- not a literal statement of how things "really are".  It is the PHILOSOPHY and the TEACHING found in these stories that lead and teach us to LIVE God's teaching for us-  the Ideal Paradigm for God's path of Happiness.   The history is irrelevant.  The science of how God created the earth is irrelevant.  Evolution is irrelevant.  A theory of Evil is irrelevant.  Read these scriptures to learn examples of what could bring peace and harmony and love to the world if we only followed the PRINCIPLES TAUGHT.

And one can only "know" and see these things by listening to the Holy Spirit, and/or the "Light of Christ" or - as secularists see the same principle when they speak of "listening to the Universe" which is simply Pantheism.  Oprah Winfrey encourages people to "listen to the small voice" which comes through The Universe- Oprah Winfrey!!   How much more secular can anyone be?  She gets it- while some folks try to figure out the physics of how it would be possible for a Being like God could communicate with everyone in the world.

They are stuck about "how" an alleged God could do this- using a paltry human intelligence- but are totally ignorant in seeing the MEANING and the PURPOSE of the IDEA which all religious people KNOW!-  that what we call "The Spirit" is as real as a red dawn or the coldness of the snow.  IT IS OUR EXPERIENCE which make these feelings within us - so that we KNOW that "all people" should be ABLE to be "equal" and we should treat them AS IF all are equal in terms of rights and liberty.

Faith is action based on HOPE for things UNSEEN.

So you can spend your life worrying about if King Josiah existed or worry about the validity of the story itself, as taught in a religious book, written to TEACH us principles to bring us closer to God.

Either way your alleged "faith" is "spent" on historicity or on learning the moral lesson taught.

I hope you do not take this personally as a criticism of your reply, and it is not about if I agree with you or not- my point is simply that we should give back to God what is His - answering the "why" questions of why these stories were written - as opposed to concerning oneself with "how" these stories could be "real".

You are driving across country trying to get to New York City for a new job opportunity.   Your car breaks down in Jefferson City Missouri.   The mechanics need to order parts.  The parts are delayed.  The company that makes the parts decides to only now make parts for electric vehicles.  Your are stuck.  You need to get a job in Jefferson instead of heading for NY.

Thirty years later, still in Jefferson, you ponder on what might have been.   You have essentially waited 30 years worrying about HOW to get the parts, or a new car or job- and you never had another opportunity to fulfill the options in New York you started out to take on.

Are you going to waste your time worrying about "how" you are going to get your car to New York and ignore the "why" you wanted the fame and fortune you could have had while you were wasting your life on "how" to get to your destination?

Instead of seeing the "why" of the journey - you got stuck in the "why"- and THAT mi amigos is why we are losing members.

We are stuck in the "how"of how scriptures could be "true"-  and ignoring what is being taught about "why" we are here in the first place, and what God wants of us- which IS the TRUTH we were seeking in the first place!!

My advice would to keep your eyes on the "Why" we should read scriptures, and forget about the irreverent "how" these stories might not be "true" because of history.

TRUTH IS IN THE "WHY" of scripture- not the "HOW".

The FUNCTION of scripture is teaching the answers to give our lives meaning- not a puzzle to decipher "how" they could be historically "true".

 

Edited November 16, 2024 by Mfbnew

[Mfbnew]

On 11/13/2024 at 9:53 PM, Zosimus said:

But I could have missed a reference somewhere

Go to the temple and listen at the beginning of the presentation.  It's there plain as can be.

[Mfbnew]

On 11/14/2024 at 1:43 PM, Nofear said:

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

See above for your "sources"

[Dario_M]

25 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

Disagree big time with your comments on Dario!

He is a newbie to the church and has a life very different from those born and raised in the USA- and to me your assessment is extremely parochial.

Utah strikes again.   Cracks me up.  Last sacrament meeting we had some visitors from Utah here in California, and they spoke on how "well we are doing here in the mission field".   Oh thank you wonderful infallible Utahns!

The problem is with those who take every word literally and can't see the forest for the trees. Is King Josiah an actual person who did or did not actually exist?

It doesn't matter.   So one can have a belief that he was "real" without having a definition of the word, and not see how the word FUNCTIONS - even as a parable.  And what do we learn from any Biblical story ? It doesn't matter for purposes of historicity - do one have faith in story because "it really happened"- or does our faith find value in the principles which are there to be learned, to improve one's life?   Jesus taught - as I recall- over 20 parables found in the New Testament- and the Book of Mormon could be 100% parables without losing its value!  Who cares?  The US constitution for example says that "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness " .... but where does that just "really happen"?  World wide?  In the Roman Empire?  Has Christianity maybe changed society just a little based on scriptures?

No, it is an example of how things OUGHT to be- not a literal statement of how things "really are".  It is the PHILOSOPHY and the TEACHING found in these stories that lead and teach us to LIVE God's teaching for us-  the Ideal Paradigm for God's path of Happiness.   The history is irrelevant.  The science of how God created the earth is irrelevant.  Evolution is irrelevant.  A theory of Evil is irrelevant.  Read these scriptures to learn examples of what could bring peace and harmony and love to the world if we only followed the PRINCIPLES TAUGHT.

And one can only "know" and see these things by listening to the Holy Spirit, and/or the "Light of Christ" or - as secularists see the same principle when they speak of "listening to the Universe" which is simply Pantheism.  Oprah Winfrey encourages people to "listen to the small voice" which comes through The Universe- Oprah Winfrey!!   How much more secular can anyone be?  She gets it- while some folks try to figure out the physics of how it would be possible for a Being like God could communicate with everyone in the world.

They are stuck about "how" an alleged God could do this- using a paltry human intelligence- but are totally ignorant in seeing the MEANING and the PURPOSE of the IDEA which all religious people KNOW!-  that what we call "The Spirit" is as real as a red dawn or the coldness of the snow.  IT IS OUR EXPERIENCE which make these feelings within us - so that we KNOW that "all people" should be ABLE to be "equal" and we should treat them AS IF all are equal in terms of rights and liberty.

Faith is action based on HOPE for things UNSEEN.

So you can spend your life worrying about if King Josiah existed or worry about the validity of the story itself, as taught in a religious book, written to TEACH us principles to bring us closer to God.

Either way your alleged "faith" is "spent" on historicity or on learning the moral lesson taught.

I hope you do not take this personally as a criticism of your reply, and it is not about if I agree with you or not- my point is simply that we should give back to God what is His - answering the "why" questions of why these stories were written - as opposed to concerning oneself with "how" these stories could be "real".

You are driving across country trying to get to New York City for a new job opportunity.   Your car breaks down in Jefferson City Missouri.   The mechanics need to order parts.  The parts are delayed.  The company that makes the parts decides to only now make parts for electric vehicles.  Your are stuck.  You need to get a job in Jefferson instead of heading for NY.

Thirty years later, still in Jefferson, you ponder on what might have been.   You have essentially waited 30 years worrying about HOW to get the parts, or a new car or job- and you never had another opportunity to fulfill the options in New York you started out to take on.

Are you going to waste your time worrying about "how" you are going to get your car to New York and ignore the "why" you wanted the fame and fortune you could have had while you were wasting your life on "how" to get to your destination?

Instead of seeing the "why" of the journey - you got stuck in the "why"- and THAT mi amigos is why we are losing members.

We are stuck in the "how"of how scriptures could be "true"-  and ignoring what is being taught about "why" we are here in the first place, and what God wants of us- which IS the TRUTH we were seeking in the first place!!

My advice would to keep your eyes on the "Why" we should read scriptures, and forget about the irreverent "how" these stories might not be "true" because of history.

TRUTH IS IN THE "WHY" of scripture- not the "HOW".

The FUNCTION of scripture is teaching the answers to give our lives meaning- not a puzzle to decipher "how" they could be historically "true".

 

This 100% indeed. ⬆️🏆

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Mfbnew said:

The problem is with those who take every word literally and can't see the forest for the trees.

I don’t think you have been paying attention to Nofear much over time if you think this is his position,

Edited November 16, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Mfbnew said:

Go to the temple and listen at the beginning of the presentation.  It's there plain as can be.

Except he wasn’t referring to LDS texts…

Quote

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.

 

[Mfbnew]

On 11/16/2024 at 1:03 AM, Calm said:

I don’t think you have been paying attention to Nofear much over time if you think this is his position,

"if you think this is his position,"

I never said that nor imo was it implied.   I was talking about those who take a literal stance in their scripture interpretation.  Maybe some is literal, but it need not be!  It's the rabbit and the duck yet again.   A pyramid is a well- know shape unless you see it from directly above, when its appearance becomes that of a square.

I was not even talking about @Nofear, I pretty much see him as well informed and like his posts- but obviously we disagree at times.  I was talking about a stereotypical "typical Utahn" who take scriptures literally always- that is fine for some but not for others.  I was not putting Nofear in that category-

But the problem with newbies is that they do not KNOW what we believe or not believe.   And that includes Dario.  Only he can decide if this is the best church for him- as he sees it.

I happen to just assume that ALL scripture is parables.   I don't care, and I think it is foolish to try to figure out history when the stories are un-provable in any sense- the only thing we can do is ASSUME from the beginning that all if it is parables- and written for the LESSONS PROVIDED in the stories within which we find "scripture".

These are wise and inspired stories which come from G0D just as Joseph's interpretation of the scribbles on the plates- IFF the plates actually existed in themselves-  I don't even care about that.   I frankly do not care if Jesus "existed"in this world as we often interpret it- all we have is stories about him, and yes some remarks from other historical figures about Him.

But it is the STORIES that tell us how we should be.   These could be parables completely- or literal completely - I DO NOT CARE.   It is the INSPIRATION that is the foundation for all of it, IMO.

I am a pragmatic Post Modernist.   And I believe, thank God, that we have moved into an age in our literature that I call "Postmormonism" !   WE are not even supposed to use the term "Mormon" - we now rightly are to see our church as THE church of JESUS CHRIST.   President Nelson has moved beyond the tradition in so many ways!

The context found in our culture nowadays is about NOT taking scripture as "real" because God himself is seen as a fantasy !

But God lives- and our church, IMO is the best paradigm mankind has found- including God as an example of "an exalted MAN".   We are his children.

IF God is an exalted HUMAN, then Humanism becomes theology!!

These are all spiritual paradigms which are spiritual and private feelings within us- which do not even HAVE to happened to be "TRUE" in a Postmodern sense.  The truth is in your testimony- and it cannot be otherwise.

Intellectually the church must embrace Postmodernism to survive- and we are seeing it happen before our eyes.

We are bleeding out members because we still are Mormons and not members of the Church of Jesus Christ!   People have NEVER historically understood that- largely because of the use of the term "Mormon" and finally the light bulb went off- that that needs to be changed.   Meaning is defined by the CONTEXT and this is no longer 1830- and we need to see the church teachings as created for our day- not the 19th century!    

The cultural context has changed and our words must follow those changes and if we do not, the church will lose its meaning completely.

But we ARE on the way because our leadership is, thanks be to God- getting the message and taking the helm and turning one of the biggest ships the world has seen- to get back on the right course.

I love this church and all that it teaches- all it needs is to be able to speak better to those of our age- the 1830's are gone gone gone.

And again, it was not about Nofear at all.

And yes it DOES say in the temple that one can see the story of Adam and Eve as the individual story we all live, in our "fall" from innocence.

That's how I have always seen it.   There is Opposition in all things- but that precisely gives us the opportunity to grow and become more like the Lord.

Edited November 18, 2024 by Mfbnew

[Mfbnew]

On 11/16/2024 at 1:13 AM, Calm said:

Except he wasn’t referring to LDS texts…

I wasn't talking about him.   If it was confusing, I apologize.

[Stargazer]

On 11/13/2024 at 2:37 PM, Nofear said:

 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?

Having just finished reading it -- well, having just listened to the Audible version -- I am very impressed!

I recommend this book to anyone who is curious as to why so many references to the Christ appear in the Book of Mormon, when the Old Testament has so few, and most of those are equivocal. 

One of ideas discussed in the book is that our modern Old Testament is a shadow of its former self, that one of the reasons the Jews didn't recognize Jesus as the Christ, and instead officially rejected him, was that many important prophecies concerning Him were systematically cut out of the OT canon by the Deuteronomists in the period after the Lehites emigrated out of Israel around 600 BC. The Brass Plates that Nephi obtained from Laban would have contained those things. And they would have colored the writings that became the Book of Mormon.

Some samples...

In the Tl;dr for chapter 5, "This Isn’t the Messiah You’re Looking For," Barnes writes:

"The Book of Mormon outrageously knows details about Jesus, the Messiah who was to come. According to the apocrypha, those same details were known to the prophets of ancient Israel and recorded in their writings. Also, the brass plates did not contain Deuteronomy, but a complete version of — or a book similar to — the apocryphal Assumption of Moses. The brass plates preserved the heretical doctrines of the Messiah, specifically: 

1. The Messiah has been preached by pre-Christian prophets
2. The Messiah saves when the Law cannot
3. The Messiah will be born in a specific year
4. The Messiah will be baptized in Jordan
5. The Messiah will be a Son of God but also human
6. The Messiah will provide His flesh for the promised fruit of the Tree of Life
7. The Messiah’s mortal name will be Jesus
8. The Messiah will raise mankind from the dead"

Barnes goes on to say:

"Nothing has drawn such howling laughter from critics as the Book of Mormon’s constant preaching of the Messiah in the pre-Christian Era. The Hebrew Old Testament is void of any direct references to Jesus Christ. It offers only shrouded symbolism in Isaiah and Daniel, over which Christians and Jews still argue today. In regard to the Messianic prophecies in Isaiah 7 and 53, Dr. Bart Ehrman rightly points out, “No one prior to Christianity took these passages to refer to a future Messiah.” The Book of Mormon, evidently, didn’t realize this, and from the first page won’t stop yapping on and on about Christ. This incessant talk about Christ doesn’t anger anyone as much as it angers… (* checks notes*)… uh… Christians." -- Barnes, Jonah R.. The Key to the Keystone: How Apocryphal Texts Unlock the Book of Mormon's Brass Plates (p. 150). Plain and Precious Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition. 

[OGHoosier]

I wasn't gonna read this (kinda burned out a little bit, taking a break from apologetical discourses for a few years while I focus on nerdy interests like shipbuilding) but now I think I will.

[Nofear]

8 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I wasn't gonna read this (kinda burned out a little bit, taking a break from apologetical discourses for a few years while I focus on nerdy interests like shipbuilding) but now I think I will.

While the book isn't exactly high scholarly work (it wasn't intended to be) it is pretty enlightening. He does not advocate that the aprocryphal works are clean scripture without corruption but that, nevertheless, many of the truths missing in our current Old Testament are clearly present in the extra-biblical canon. In one video interview he did say that there is a lot of "cray cray" in the apocryphal works. As such, it is pretty useful for somebody to filter a lot of the material for those of us who aren't professional or lay biblical scholars doing that kind of deep dive to find the pearls hidden in the texts. I think this book is a great start/primer. I hope other more rigorous works follow!

PS: I believe he is currently working on a book to elaborate on the Adam and Eve story. It gets a lot of attention in Key to the Keystone but there was a lot left out too.

Edited April 3, 2025 by Nofear

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Nofear said:

As such, it is pretty useful for somebody to filter a lot of the material for those of us who aren't professional or lay biblical scholars doing that kind of deep dive to find the pearls hidden in the texts. I think this book is a great start/primer.

What is his training?  I am concerned about reading into texts expectations, choosing translations that favor one’s bias, etc.

[The Nehor]

What apocryphal books? Pretty much all of the Apocrypha was written much later than 600 BCE. Centuries in most cases. If the references to the messiah were removed why would they be put back in later works?

The chronology is all wrong. Also most of the Old Testament was written or compiled after Lehi left so having it all removed from something that wasn’t really a thing yet is odd.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

What is his training?  I am concerned about reading into texts expectations, choosing translations that favor one’s bias, etc.

I am dubious since the last time I looked into Ward Radio claims of an exciting discovery (some Russian texts) it was revealed they used automatic translation software and just trusted it was accurate.

[ZealouslyStriving]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

What apocryphal books? Pretty much all of the Apocrypha was written much later than 600 BCE. Centuries in most cases. If the references to the messiah were removed why would they be put back in later works?

The chronology is all wrong. Also most of the Old Testament was written or compiled after Lehi left so having it all removed from something that wasn’t really a thing yet is odd.

I am dubious since the last time I looked into Ward Radio claims of an exciting discovery (some Russian texts) it was revealed they used automatic translation software and just trusted it was accurate.

Since Jonah served his mission in Russia, I doubt they "just trusted it was accurate".

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Since Jonah served his mission in Russia, I doubt they "just trusted it was accurate".

This discovery came via a guest and even if Jonah was involved and is still fluent the original wouldn’t be in modern Russian. It would have been in an older dialect of Russian or more likely Latin or Greek or Old Church Slavonic or some other language.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Since Jonah served his mission in Russia, I doubt they "just trusted it was accurate".

Missionaries I understand typically have a focused/specialized vocabulary due to the purpose of most of their discussions unless they have expanded their knowledge of the language in other ways.  Not sure how useful missionary vocabulary would be for reading older texts.

[Nofear]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

What is his training?  I am concerned about reading into texts expectations, choosing translations that favor one’s bias, etc.

No academic credentials pertinent in the least to scriptural exegesis. It's a hobby.
He runs a bakery with his wife who has a degree in psychology. He himself has a MBA in logistics.

He is indeed rather biased and the nature of the texts are such that "cherry picking" is fairly prominent. Curiously, there seems to be a lot of cherries. And if one is skeptical of quoted passages, one can cross reference with other references such as  "The Most Complete 150-Book Apocrypha" by a non-LDS scholar (https://www.amazon.com/Most-Complete-150-Book-Apocrypha-Deuterocanonical/dp/B0D8WFF7YV).

 

[halconero]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

What apocryphal books? Pretty much all of the Apocrypha was written much later than 600 BCE. Centuries in most cases. If the references to the messiah were removed why would they be put back in later works?

The chronology is all wrong. Also most of the Old Testament was written or compiled after Lehi left so having it all removed from something that wasn’t really a thing yet is odd.

I am dubious since the last time I looked into Ward Radio claims of an exciting discovery (some Russian texts) it was revealed they used automatic translation software and just trusted it was accurate.

I’m a bit dubious too, tbh.

Besides the historical bits, there’s simply a much more parsimonious explanation why the Nephites seem to know so much of Jesus: God reveals it to them.

That isn’t conjecture. It’s detailed in 1 Nephi 10 and 11.

Nephi’s explanation for why he knows Jesus’ name isn’t that he has some secret books; it’s that the angel of God told him.

If this weren’t enough, King Benjamin has his own vision where an angel tells him Jesus’ name.

We don’t have to dig around for a more complicated reason than what’s in the text.

And out of all the criticisms that people can leverage against the Book of Mormon, the notion that Nephite use of the title “Christ” anachronistic is one of the lamer ones. Nowhere is it implied that they used an anglicized form a Greek title for “Mashiach”. The simpler read is that the translation of “anointed” into English as Christ or Messiah was fine.

[halconero]

For what it’s worth, in reading the Book of Mormon for its writers’ individual understandings of the atonement, I’ve put extra study into the historical, theological, and cultural contexts in which they wrote, particularly around the reign of Josiah and his successors.

There are some fascinating indicators in 1 Nephi 1 alone that Lehi was very aligned with the Jeremiah faction at court. His vision of the pillar of fire is an indicator that God had departed from the temple, leaving the sanctuary empty and Jerusalem unprotected. I’m not sure his preaching of a messiah would have been seen as blasphemous so much as treasonous—the king was a messiah, and God would deliver Judah, not the world. Members of the court openly discussed the return of Jeconiah from Babylon to supplant Zedekiah.

Lehi preaching that a different Messiah (i.e, king) would come and redeem the *world*, not just Judah from its political vassalage, would have seemed like treason against Judah and the Davidic line through Zedekiah.

It’s also clear later on that Laman and Lemuel’s rebellion wasn’t just a character fault on their end—their rhetoric aligns pretty closely with the “peace” faction at court (which, ironically preached rebellion and war against Babylon), led by Hananiah.

[The Nehor]

The Jewish concept of a kind of apocalyptic messiah was (as far as we know) not really much of a thing until the Persians were in charge. Then again we don’t really know what cultural construct Lehi and Nephi were using for what is called the messiah in the Book of Mormon. 

A messiah coming to free Israel probably didn’t seem as vital until the nation was gone. The messiah concept that many were hoping Jesus (and many others) would fulfill didn’t get standardized until much later. Jesus didn’t fulfill the requirements but this was explained as Jesus would come back and take care of it.

Another comparable messiah was Sabbatai Zevi who went back and forth on whether he was the messiah. Eventually he was coerced to convert to Islam. His followers insisted this was part of the plan. Even when he died some of his followers maintained that he would come back in some form and be the messiah. The offshoot of Judaism that believed this is suspected to be extinct now (holocaust didn’t help) but there might still be believers out there as it was often practiced secretly.

I find it hard to believe that they found hints of the messiah in books that post-date Lehi’s leaving Jerusalem that somehow prove that Josiah took out all references of the messiah but they survived in other works that somehow got passed down? I have a hard time following the logic here.

[Benjamin McGuire]

I haven't read the book. I would like to make a couple of comments.

1: Anyone claiming that the Book of Mormon needs some sort of key to properly read it is off in left field someplace. Nephi, in the Book of Mormon, explains that the key to reading the Book of Mormon is personal experience - so that we can "liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning". He deliberately excludes historical context when reading scripture to his descendants so that they are forced to read the text in that way - and he provides examples of how to read a text in this way. I discussed all of that in this essay.

2: The meaning of the Josian reform and its impact on Jewish religion is very much a contested issue. A while back, I was asked to write this brief essay. In it I make this observation:

Quote

The scriptures that were being used in Jerusalem at the end of Josiah’s reign, including some of the prophecies of Jeremiah and the Book of Deuteronomy (the Book of the Law) appear in the Brass Plates taken by Lehi to the New World. And both Jeremiah and the Book of Mormon quote and allude to Deuteronomy frequently.

Compare that statement to this one from Barnes cited above:

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Also, the brass plates did not contain Deuteronomy, but a complete version of — or a book similar to — the apocryphal Assumption of Moses.

Barnes, from my perspective, doesn't know what he is talking about.

3: The Book of Mormon is not an ancient text - it is a modern text, published in 1830, long after Christianity has its beginning. So when Barnes suggests:

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The Book of Mormon outrageously knows details about Jesus, the Messiah who was to come.

I wonder why this is so outrageous that the Book of Mormon knows details about Jesus, the Messiah, who came 1800 years before the text of the Book of Mormon was written and published. While we could have a discussion about the relationship between the Book of Mormon and the Gold Plates, instead we get a conflation between the two that creates this sort of problem in discussions that we see here. And even within the contents of the Gold Plates, everything after Omni is written hundreds of years after the advent of the Messiah. If our concern is an accurate look at historical context, these distinctions are important.

So why does this all matter - especially given what I noted in my first point? I noted something in that first essay of mine that I linked to about possible reasons why Nephi engages in this sort of textual cannibalism:

Quote

As we just noted, he explains that he likens scripture unto his community to “more fully persuade them to believe in the Lord.” And he justifies this by suggesting that the Jews “works were works of darkness, and their doings were doings of abominations” (2 Nephi 25:2). The Jews had Isaiah, they had read Isaiah (in the manner in which Nephi had been taught) and yet this scripture didn’t (apparently) persuade the Jews to come to God and be saved (as evidenced by their impending doom).

And footnote 31:

Quote

Instead of quotation, then, Nephi’s use of Isaiah here is closer to reinscription, a practice which has been described as textual cannibalism. For additional discussion and some useful examples, see Felisa Vergara Reynolds, “Literary Cannibalism: Almost the Same, But Not Quite/Almost the Same But Not White” (PhD diss. Cambridge: Harvard University, 2009)

There is a funny thing that happens when we try to (a) reconstruct a historical context for the gold plates/Book of Mormon and then (b) to interpret the text of the Book of Mormon inside that historical context. We create a meaning for the text that has only an illusionary sense of revelation. Our argument for the meaning of the text shifts from that personal experience of meaning that comes through reading the text in light of our personal experience and understanding, and instead places the value of the text on the text as artifact, which can be placed in that historical context and so it can become evidence of revelation (but not meaningful beyond that value as evidence). The purpose of reading the text stops being an engagement with the text as a personal dialogue and instead becomes a search for parallels to that historical context that we have constructed that we believe provides a lens through which the text should be read. And eventually, having found our parallels (which is statistically inevitable) and convincing ourselves of the rightness of that model, we take our reading and assert that this reading is exactly what was intended by its authors/translators. And so our reading becomes a "key" to interpretation. And because (against Nephi) we want to believe that it is the meaning that the original author intended that should be the most valuable (or perhaps, to the extent that we see God as the author of scripture, that the meaning that God intends) we end up taking our constructed meaning and fully investing it as the meaning that the original author(s) intended. We have now (at least in our own minds) severed the reading of the text from our own experience (which is, of course part of the illusion). Of course, it works just the same way for the critics - they follow exactly the same process just with a different set of parallels and a different historical context and a different sense of authorship. Consequently we have from both believers and critics an endless mass of interpretations - each claiming to hold that "key to the keystone".

That essay of mine concludes with this - and I apologize for its length, but I think its helpful in explaining my own point of view:

Quote

In order to shift the way we read — from centering our reading on Nephi (from reading-with Nephi) to reading-with ourselves and reading-with the Spirit, Nephi has to liberate the text from himself. As Roland Barthes suggests:

Quote

To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing. Such a conception suits criticism very well, the latter then allotting itself the important task of discovering the Author (or its hypostases: society, history, psyche, liberty) beneath the work: when the Author has been found, the text is “explained” — victory to the critic.

We might just as well substitute “interpreter” here for Barthes’s critic. The reading strategies Nephi offers us are lost when we settle on a final interpretation — a basis for the meaning of the work. Nephi’s strategies intentionally leave the work open to us as readers. We can approach the text multiple times, each time coming away with a different but valid understanding. Reading in this way means that we, in a sense, lose Nephi the author, but not necessarily Nephi the narrator. That character in the text remains and teaches us. But for us to relate to Nephi as narrator, we have to join that narrative audience. We have to adopt his strategies of reading-with. We have to be open to the Spirit, and we have to liken the text to ourselves.

It is this openness of the text that also appeals to us. The text makes no special demands on us; it does not require that we possess some esoteric knowledge to uncover the “real” meaning. Just as Nephi’s vision of the Tree of Life complements his father’s vision (by adding a different experience; a different awareness of its details) so do our various readings complement each other. We want to see interpretations for every individual and every community; we want men’s readings and women’s readings; we want approaches from different ethnicities; we need interpretations from the spectrum of economic strata. All of these readings combine to complement each other. Singularly and collectively, as we read-with, we unfold the purpose of God. As we read and then re-read, we like Nephi, can deconstruct our own preconceptions of the text.

Anyway, just my two cents.

Edited April 4, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Barnes, from my perspective, doesn't know what he is talking about.

I also read Don Bradley's earlier work The Lost 116 Pages. What I found remarkable about his more scholarly work was how consistent many of the assertions were with some of the theses of Key to the Keystone written completely independent of each other.

While I'm certain that Barnes will error in some particular here or there, I find that his basic theses seem to hold:

• Extant apocryphal literature often draws from much older literature
• High Christology, absent from the Old Testament, is explicit in the older literature

I don't think one necessarily has to accept those theses to appreciate The Book of Mormon. Those that want to hold it merely as a product of the 1800's need not worry about such things. But I think if one does accept the theses, The Book of Mormon becomes much more ... real.

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2025 by Nofear

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

The Book of Mormon becomes much more ... real.

And I think this just illustrates my point. What do you mean by "much more ... real"? I would guess (and I could be wrong) that you mean by this that the Book of Mormon becomes much more verisimilar, now that it can be placed into a historical context? This is (assuming I am right) exactly what I was referring to when I said:

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Our argument for the meaning of the text shifts from that personal experience of meaning that comes through reading the text in light of our personal experience and understanding, and instead places the value of the text on the text as artifact, which can be placed in that historical context and so it can become evidence of revelation (but not meaningful beyond that value as evidence).

What makes the text real for me is that it contains dialogues about religious truth that are independent of a historical context - and so can be meaningful today in the context of my experience. Isaiah was completely useless to Nephi when situated in its historical context. So much so that he refuses to give his people the 'key' by which it could be understood in that context. Again, going back to my essay:

Quote

Nephi, in similar fashion, tells us this:

     "Now I, Nephi, do speak somewhat concerning the words which I have written, which have been spoken by the mouth of Isaiah. For behold, Isaiah spake many things which were hard for many of my people to understand; for they know not concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews." (2 Nephi 25:1)

Nephi describes for us this body of necessary knowledge since without it Isaiah is hard to understand. This situation can be mitigated; Rabinowitz tells us that “even such things as the belief structures of a society must often be ‘explained’ to the reader before he can fully understand the text.” And Nephi suggests that his own understanding comes from this sort of experience and learning; he tells us:

     "I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews. … but behold, I, of myself, have dwelt at Jerusalem, wherefore I know concerning the regions round about." (2 Nephi 25:6–7)

If Nephi is aware that certain knowledge is necessary to understand Isaiah, and is in possession of that information, then he as an author would be expected to provide that knowledge so that his text too could be understood. ... Nephi, on the other hand, while recognizing this issue, takes us in the opposite direction:

     "For I, Nephi, have not taught them many things concerning the manner of the Jews; … But behold, I, Nephi, have not taught my children after the manner of the Jews." (2 Nephi 25:2, 6)

Nephi has deliberately prevented his authorial audience from being able to understand Isaiah in the same way that Nephi understands Isaiah, and at the same time, he is letting that audience know that this step in his writing is not merely accidental, or caused by Nephi’s own flawed assumptions in creating his authorial audience. This development is deliberate. What remains is something even more radical. The authorial audience is an audience that doesn’t have this social and cultural knowledge and, in fact, that may have no recourse to receive it. Nephi withheld this information from the authorial audience.

What is really fascinating to me here is that we don't become competent readers of Isaiah in The Book of Mormon by learning everything we can about the ancient Jews and their "manner of prophesying". To learn all of this and then come to the text is, in fact, to do just the opposite of what Nephi seems to be suggesting here. It is a way of failing to understand the text the way it was intended to be read (at least according to the text). We don't fix Nephi's deliberate omission by filling it in with our speculative understanding of history. If we really want to read the text as Nephi intends, we do so by reading it differently - ignoring that historical context as largely irrelevant -

     “for because the words of Isaiah are not plain unto you, nevertheless they are plain unto all those that are filled with the spirit of prophecy” (2 Nephi 25:4)

By likening the Book of Mormon to ourselves, and by reading with the Spirit (as opposed to trying to place it in our speculative historical context) I would suggest, we also make the text "much more ... real."

Not having read Barnes (but having a copy of Bradley), I would hazard the guess that they are not exactly independent. Not because they collaborated with each other but because they relied on some of the same interpretive literature and ideas that circulate in LDS literature.

Edit: I want to note that I am not against trying to understand the historical context. The Book of Mormon in places quotes and alludes to other literature - and knowing that literature and recognizing those allusions is important. I myself have spent a lot of time understanding the history and theology of the Old Testament. It's just that such efforts aren't particularly necessary in understanding what is plain and precious about the Book of Mormon.

Edited April 4, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[Nofear]

22 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I want to note that I am not against trying to understand the historical context. The Book of Mormon in places quotes and alludes to other literature - and knowing that literature and recognizing those allusions is important. [snip] It's just that such efforts aren't particularly necessary in understanding what is plain and precious about the Book of Mormon.

👍 Agreed. It's not necessary to understand the historical context.

[ZealouslyStriving]

Jonah's effort is to show evidence that the Book of Mormon hints at issues brought forth by Barker, etc... thus providing evidence for it's Hebrew origins, and early timeline, instead of "ole Joe Smith wrote it!". It's mainly apologetic in nature, using modern historical research.