#Biblical scholars on Joseph Smith | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

kemetic-dreams · 4 years ago

Photo

Trying to make African people and culture evil

Early Jewish interpretations

The Torah assigns no racial characteristics or rankings to Ham. Moses married a Cushite, one of the reputed descendants of Ham, according to the Book of Numbers, Chapter 12. Despite this, a number of early Jewish writers have interpreted the Biblical narrative of Ham in a racial way. The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 108b states, "Our Rabbis taught: Three copulated in the ark, and they were all punished—the dog, the raven, and Ham. The dog was doomed to be tied, the raven expectorates, and Ham was smitten in his skin" (Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 108b). The nature of Ham's "smitten" skin is unexplained, but later commentaries described this as a darkening of skin.

A later note to the text states that the "smitten" skin referred to the blackness of descendants, and a later comment by rabbis in the Bereshit Rabbah asserts that Ham himself emerged from the ark black-skinned. The Zohar states that Ham's son Canaan "darkened the faces of mankind."

Some Biblical scholars see the "curse of Ham" story as an early Hebrew rationalization for Israel's conquest and enslavement of the Canaanites, who were presumed to descend from Canaan.

Many pre-modern Christian sources discussed the curse of Ham in connection with race and slavery:

For the Egyptians are prone to a degenerate life and quickly sink to every slavery of the vices. Look at the origin of the race and you will discover that their father Cham, who had laughed at his father’s nakedness, deserved a judgment of this kind, that his son Chanaan should be a servant to his brothers, in which case the condition of bondage would prove the wickedness of his conduct. Not without merit, therefore, does the discolored posterity imitate the ignobility of the race [Non ergo immerito ignobilitatem decolor posteritas imitatur] (Homilies on Genesis 16.1).

The Eastern Christian work, the Cave of Treasures (fourth century), explicitly connects slavery with dark-skinned people:

When Noah awoke…he cursed him and said: "Cursed be Ham and may he be slave to his brothers" … and he became a slave, he and his lineage, namely the Egyptians, the Abyssinians, and the Indians. Indeed, Ham lost all sense of shame and he became black and was called shameless all the days of his life, forever.

Ishodad of Merv (Syrian Christian bishop of Hedhatha, ninth century):

When Noah cursed Canaan, “instantly, by the force of the curse… his face and entire body became black [ukmotha]. This is the black color which has persisted in his descendents.”

Eutychius, Alexandrian Melkite patriarch (d. 940): “Cursed be Ham and may he be a servant to his brothers… He himself and his descendants, who are the Egyptians, the Negroes, the Ethiopians and (it is said) the Barbari.”

Ibn al-Tayyib (Arabic Christian scholar, Baghdad, d. 1043): “The curse of Noah affected the posterity of Canaan who were killed by Joshua son of Nun. At the moment of the curse, Canaan’s body became black and the blackness spread out among them.”

The Syrian Christian scholar Bar Hebraeus (1226-86) writes: “‘And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and showed [it] to his two brothers.’ That is…that Canaan was cursed and not Ham, and with the very curse he became black and the blackness was transmitted to his descendents…. And he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan! A servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.’”

According to Catholic mystic Anne Catherine Emmerich, "I saw the curse pronounced by Noah upon Ham moving toward the latter like a black cloud and obscuring him. His skin lost its whiteness, he grew darker. His sin was the sin of sacrilege, the sin of one who would forcibly enter the Ark of the Covenant. I saw a most corrupt race descend from Ham and sink deeper and deeper in darkness. I see that the black, idolatrous, stupid nations are the descendants of Ham. Their color is due, not to the rays of the sun, but to the dark source whence those degraded races sprang."

Pre-modern European interpretations

In the Middle Ages, European scholars of the Bible picked up on the Jewish Talmud idea of viewing the "sons of Ham" or Hamites as cursed, possibly "blackened" by their sins. Though early arguments to this effect were sporadic, they became increasingly common during the slave trade of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.[6] The justification of slavery itself through the sins of Ham was well suited to the ideological interests of the elite; with the emergence of the slave trade, its racialized version justified the exploitation of a ready supply of African labour. This interpretation of Scripture was never adopted by the African Coptic Churches.

The curse of Ham in the Latter-day Saint Movement (Mormon)

The first recorded indication of Joseph Smith's adoption of the doctrine of the curse of Ham is found in a parenthetical reference as early as 1831.

After the death of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, the church's second president, taught that people of African ancestry were under the curse of Ham. Young also taught that the day would come when the curse would be nullified through the saving powers of Jesus Christ.

In addition, based on his interpretation of the Book of Abraham, Young also believed that as a result of this curse, modern people of African descent were banned from receiving the Priesthood (although they were allowed to join the Church). Young believed the curse remained in people with even a single black ancestor.

However, every President of the Church from Joseph Smith Jr. to Spencer W. Kimball stated that the day would come when the Priesthood would be available to all men. In 1978, after much prayer and fasting on the matter, President Spencer W. Kimball of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints received a revelation which officially extended the Priesthood to all worthy males.

The curse of Ham in Black Hebrew Israelite and Nuwaubian teachings

The Nuwaubians, and certain Black Hebrew Israelite sects such as Yahweh Ben Yahweh, reversed the typical racial slant of the curse of Ham. In their teaching the curse was leprosy, which in its extreme form whitened the skins of the Canaanites.

Islamic interpretations

Prophets of Islam are generally considered by hadith to have kept Islamic law, even before Islam existed; the belief is that God's universal will guided them in the same way as Muhammad, and their habits simply were not accepted by others nor written down. As Islam discourages the consumption of alcohol, this means that the story could not have happened as described in the Torah, as Noah would never be drunk. Instead the story of Noah's nakedness is sometimes explained as the result of the wind blowing off his cloak. Nevertheless, the story of the curse is not part of Islamic scripture.

Early Islamic scholars debated whether or not there was a curse on Ham's descendants. Some accepted that there was, and some argued that it was visible in dark skin. According to David Goldenberg,

Just as in Jewish and Christian sources, so too in Islamic sources do we find that it was not Canaan who was cursed with slavery, but Ham instead of or in addition to Canaan. So, for example, Tabari (d. 923), quoting Ibn Isaq (d. 768), Masudi (tenth century) and Dimashqui (thirteenth century). Ham appears as the recipient of the curse so regularly that the only Arabic author Gerhard Rotter could find who specifically limits the curse to Canaan is Yaqubi (d. ca 900). In all others the descendants of Ham were enslaved.

Goldenberg argues that the "exegetical tie between Ham and servitude is commonly found in works composed in the Near East whether in Arabic by Muslims or in Syraic by Christians." He suggests that the compilation known as the Cave of Miracles (Abrégé des merveilles) may be the source. This text states that "Noah cursed Ham, praying to God that Ham's sons may be cursed and black and that they be subjected as slaves to those of Shem."

In the book, One Thousand and One Nights, there is an argument between black and white concubines about which color is better. The white concubine tells the story of the curse of Ham, saying that Ham was blackened because he ridiculed his father, but Shem was whitened because he refused to do so. The black concubine replies with the argument that whiteness is associated with death and leprosy.

#african #kemetic dreams #one thousand and one nights #arabs #curse of ham #ta meri #egyptianart #talmud #egyptian mythology #kemet #ham #hamitic #hamitic people #arabic #shem

185 notes · View notes

wisdomfish · 6 years ago

Text

Christian, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness: Is It All the Same?

Christianity is built primarily on two foundations: Jesus is God and the inerrancy of the Bible. We are encouraged to be at peace with all men, even with those who have different beliefs. But the Bible also encourages us to boldly and confidently present a scriptural basis for truth and compare differences. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I want to see people experience a passionate relationship with Jesus. Although many applaud boldness, if the truth be told, life would be much easier if I took another vocation and avoided controversy. But I cannot.

Who is Jesus? How you answer this question is the difference between right and wrong, light and darkness, heaven and hell. When asked this question, the apostle Peter gave the correct response: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew:16:16). No one comes to the Father except through Him (cf. John:14:6).

Roman Catholicism promotes submission to the teachings of the Pope, bishops, and sacred traditions that often supersede Scripture. I have many Mormon friends, but there are some clear differences. Mormons refer to the Bible, but look primarily to the Book of Mormon. The challenge with believing both the Bible and the Book of Mormon is that Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith cannot both be right — they contradict each other at every turn. Mormon doctrine teaches that the inspired words of their living prophets become scripture; thus, superseding the Bible. After many years of saying, "I want to bear my testimony that I know this church is true ... I know our prophet is a true prophet of God," it becomes ingrained but rarely challenged.

Jehovah's Witnesses, through The New World Translation, claim that their version of the Bible is scholarly and more accurate. However, the translators were not biblical scholars or theologians. David Reed, an ex-Witness, says that the New World Translation came into being in 1961 for the sole purpose of eliminating the deity of Christ.

Christianity is built on the written word of God alone. The Bible is our infallible rule of faith, being sufficient to give us the sure knowledge of the Gospel: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy:3:16). We cannot add or subtract.

Mormons believe that God was once as we are, and is now an exalted man, and that men can become gods. The prophet Joseph Smith refers to this as "the great secret" (Times and Seasons 5:613; Aug. 1844). They also assert that God's marriage partner is our mother in heaven; we are their spirit children; good works are necessary for salvation. If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration of truth, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Doctrine, p. 670).

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that salvation comes through works and not faith alone. Jesus Christ was a perfect man; a created being like us. According to John:1:1, in their Bible, Christ is "a god," but not "the God." They do not believe everything that Jesus claimed about Himself. The New World Translation and the Watchtower tracts systematically set out to eliminate evidence for the deity of Christ.

Any time we minimize Christ's finished work on the cross, we are on very dangerous ground. Historical Christianity believes that Jesus is the only way, the only truth, and the only life. No one comes to the Father except through Him (cf. John:14:6). He is not a "god"; He is God....God the Father was never like us and we will never be like Him. This dangerous view exalts man. If a person claims that a "messenger of light" appeared to them with new truth, we should point them to Paul's words, "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed" (Galatians:1:8).

Christ is the only Head of the Church. We do not need an additional mediator; Jesus is our mediator and Priest (Hebrews:4:15). We do not need to belong to any Church, or Society, to be saved. Salvation comes through Christ alone: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God" (Ephesians:2:8).

(Idleman, "Christian, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness: Is It All the Same?," ChristianPost Online, 12/31/16)

#christianity #mormonism #jehovah's witness #roman catholicism

4 notes · View notes

thewahookid · 4 years ago

Link

How can a loving and merciful God send a person into endless torture in hell? Actually, He does not. They send themselves there. The only unpleasantness to which He channels them is purgatory, where they have the hope of rising to heaven.

Protestants and Eastern Orthodox deny the concept of purgatory because limited, temporary detention for sin with a hope of release is not mentioned in Scripture or earliest church fathers. In real fact, purgatory is indicated by many of them, including those of the first three centuries of Christian literature. Consulting such early sources helps give us the most accurate meaning of New Testament doctrine and praxis. It does so through revealing the presuppositions shared by the New Testament personages and their original hearers and thus disclose the interpretation and lesson that recipients were intended to draw from them. In this way, the ancient sources help inform us of Biblical concepts (which are sometimes quite different from ours) and help supply its conceptual framework so that we can better relate to biblical paradigms. In addition, the literature cited in this article recorded contemporary beliefs and practices during a period as to which most present-day Christians agree the Holy Spirit was still actively guiding the church.

In evaluating modern interpretations and methods of interpreting the Bible, Christians today can derive much assistance from what ancient Christians wrote on various issues before they became subjects of dispute.1 It is more probable that the teaching of Jesus and His apostles was preserved among the first few generations of Christians, instead of the true faith and practice disappearing as soon as the last word of the Bible was written, then long afterwards being perfectly restored at the Reformation or by Mohammed in the seventh century or by Joseph Smith of the Latter-Day Saints in the nineteenth. Similarly, it is infinitely more credible that the correct interpretation of the Bible was preserved by these early generations than first come to light centuries later.

The probability is vanishingly remote that even the most dedicated and protracted study of the Scriptures in the sixteenth century or later would uncover a spiritual truth unknown to early Christians. Christianity has never been a mere collection of writings that can be interpreted by one person as accurately as by another regardless of time or place. The Christian faith has always been a living community or group of communities in which the gospel is shared and transmitted. One Christian interacts with others; older members tell younger members; unwritten memories are recorded in writing by a later generation; and each person directly or indirectly interacts with other Christians, ultimately preserved in the sources below.

Where the early Christian authors agree among themselves, it must be that their presentations of the Christian faith were received from the apostles not many years earlier. Theirs may be only an interpretation, but it is a more authoritative interpretation than those formulated since the sixteenth century because it was made closer to the milieu of the New Testament authors.

A major premise of belief in purgatory is that God is not vindictive or vengeful or inclined to bear grudges forever. The flames in the afterlife, as mentioned at various points in the Scriptures, are a purifying fire, like that for metals, not a destroying fire or one burning for the sole sake of punishment. The distinctive principle of a temporary, graded punishment after death is that the purpose of such chastisement is to purge sin from a soul and thus purify it for eventual entry into heaven. This principle of divine operation is hinted at in Ezekiel 22:18 and stated more clearly in Malachi 3:3: “He will sit refining and purifying silver, and he will purify the Levites.” In addition to this principle is the concept that evildoers must make reparation or pay for their earthly sins.

In early Christian times a commonly-used proof-text for this was Matthew 5:25-26: “Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are on the way to court with him, or your accuser may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.” Instead of “penny,” some translations say “farthing,” which was a quarter of a penny.

It may seem strange to twenty-first-century readers to link this passage with the afterlife, but purgatory — often called Hades — is the theme of all earliest known exegeses of it.

Origen was the foremost Christian theologian, Bible scholar and teacher of the first half of the third century AD, and the most prolific Christian writer prior to Martin Luther. From AD 202 to 230 or 233 he was the dean/principal of Christendom’s leading institution of higher learning. In AD 231 or 233 he established his own in Palestine. He traveled much in the eastern Roman Empire as a theological consultant to local bishops, and thus could witness ethics and doctrine in many places.

Origen taught in Against Celsus that somewhere in the universe God maintains a “training school of virtue” for Christians who died in sin, to perfect them for heaven. God purifies them “like gold in the fire” after their deaths so that they can recover their pristine spiritual status and eventually enter paradise.2 According to his Homilies on Samuel, purgatory is not hell or heaven but a waiting room where God intervenes in the lives of its inhabitants and metes out greater or lesser punishments, or no punishment at all, depending on the person’s life and faith on earth.3 His Homilies on Leviticus explain that purification for sins comes by death and eternal fires.4

About Origen’s time lived a bishop in central Italy whose Against Plato, on the Cause of the Universe indicated that Hades is the region in which the souls both of the righteous and the unrighteous are detained. He elaborated that “this locality has been destined to be as it were a guard-house for souls, at which the angels are stationed as guards, distributing according to each one’s deeds the temporary punishments for [different] characters.”5

Earlier in the third century, Tertullian, the Father of Latin Christian Literature, wrote that all souls go to purgatory, where they undergo punishment and consolation while awaiting judgment, in a certain anticipation either of gloom or of glory:6

In short, inasmuch as we understand “the prison” pointed out in the Gospel to be Hades, and as we also interpret “the uttermost farthing” to mean the very smallest offence which has to be recompensed there before the resurrection, no one will hesitate to believe that the soul undergoes in Hades some compensatory discipline, without prejudice to the full process of the resurrection, when the recompense will be administered through the flesh besides.7

This region, therefore, I call Abraham’s bosom. Although it is not in heaven, it is yet higher than hell, and is appointed to afford an interval of rest to the souls of the righteous, until the consummation of all things shall complete the resurrection of all men with the “full recompense of their reward.”8

Tertullian noted that “by Abraham’s bosom is meant some temporary receptacle of faithful souls.”9

These pronouncements are not alternate descriptions of a permanent, endless hell as commonly conceived. Its purpose is completely different from purgatory/Hades. In Protestant thought, hell is endless, only for persons who died in sin, has no bearing on the righteous (who go directly to heaven), where all inmates are treated the same way regardless of frequency or degree of turpitude, and the living cannot do anything to shorten the denizens’ stay or otherwise help them.

As for length of time in purgatory, Origen’s Homilies on Judges leave little doubt that the durations of punishment are determined according to the severity of the sin, and the prolongation of our conversion to God’s ways also prolonging the time of chastisement.10 His Homilies on Luke express the same thought: “Each one of us incurs a penalty for each single sin, and the size of the penalty is reckoned according to the quality and nature of the offense.”11 “Each one receives a sentence with a different fine, according to the quality and quantity of his sin.”12 “There is no other time to give an account except the time of judgment. Then, what has been entrusted to us, and what gains and losses we have made, will be clearly known.”13 “You will be sent to prison, and there you will have payment exacted by labor and work, or by punishments and torture; and you will not get out, unless you have paid the penny and the ‘last farthing.’14 One’s stay in purgatory will depend on how he or she behaved on earth, according to Homilies on Psalm 36.15

There is a widespread understanding that most of us, even virtuous souls, spend some amount of time in purgatory. The Homilies on Psalm 36 record that even Peter and Paul had to go there.16 This is because heaven is only for the absolutely perfect, and the purpose of purgatory is to purify the less-than-perfect for heaven, with saints and apostles spending only a short time.

Such postmortem chastisement is essentially medicinal and curative, designed to rehabilitate offenders so that everyone may eventually, although belatedly, enter heaven.17 Another explanation was given by Origen’s teacher in the AD 190s, and predecessor at the prominent Christian school:

For there are partial corrections, which are called chastisements, which many of us who have been in transgression incur, by falling away from the Lord’s people. But as children are chastised by their teacher, or their father, so are we by Providence. But God does not punish, for punishment is retaliation for evil. He chastises, however, for good to those who are chastised, collectively and individually.18

and:

God’s punishments are saving and disciplinary, leading to conversion, and choosing rather the repentance than the death of the sinner; and especially since souls, although darkened by passions, when released from their bodies, are able to perceive more clearly, because of their being no longer obstructed by the paltry flesh.19

As a loving father, God inflicts punishment only in order to correct and redirect his children; therefore, chastisement after death is no more severe and no longer in duration than is necessary to reform the individual sinner.

Lastly, much of the theology of the afterlife, “the four last things,” of standard Protestantism is without hope, and Christians on earth can do nothing to alleviate the fate of its inhabitants. However, in the second century, Christians taught that the living can indeed assist their brothers and sisters there. One book in early Christian use, the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, states there is prayer for the people in Hades.20 Even in the first or second century, the Testament of Abraham recognizes heaven, hell, and Hades, and that the prayer of a righteous man can transport a soul from purgatory to Paradise.21 A little later than our time period, the Acts of Andrew record that an apostle prayed that a dead repentant Christian “might rest in peace.”22 Tertullian’s On Monogamy described the activities of a Christian’s widow: “she prays for his soul, and requests refreshment for him meanwhile, and fellowship with him in the resurrection; and she offers a Eucharist on the anniversaries of his falling asleep.”23 In mentioning Christian traditions so old and so universal that they were embraced by the faithful often with the same level of authority as as Sacred Scripture, Tertullian spoke of offering a Eucharist for the dead “as birthday honors.”24

Despite standing alone among Christian churches in teaching about a transitory place of rectification and disciplining immediately after death, the Roman Catholic Church has preserved the concept that the earliest church possessed, unlike the Eastern Orthodox and most Protestants, including denominations with fulsome and intricate pronouncements on what happens in the afterlife.

1 note · View note

examiningmormonism · 5 years ago

Text

Are Book of Mormon Names Evidence for Authenticity?

One of the most common arguments for the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon is the use of nonbiblical personal and place names which have 1) sensible etymologies in Old World languages sometimes making contextual sense as wordplays and/or 2) have been verified from extrabiblical sources after Joseph Smith's day.

I find such arguments, taken as a whole, deeply unconvincing- despite a smattering of reasonably interesting cases. These cases are overwhelmingly the exception to the rule. A good model should account for the entire phenomenon of Book of Mormon names rather than picking out a few here and there and utilizing them as individual arguments isolated from the pattern of the text as a whole.

Here are seven reasons why Book of Mormon names are not a sound argument for historicity. I begin with factors which undermine arguments for historicity and move towards arguments which mitigate against historicity.

-1- A survey of the Book of Mormon Onomasticon often- even typically- provides a list of possible etymologies, each of them called "plausible." I have never seen LDS scholars or apologists note how this completely undermines the argument for "direct hits." If you have three different plausible etymologies, at least two are chance connections, as these are mutually exclusive. So by virtue of providing different options, the LDS scholar has acknowledged the possibility and frequency of chance connections with ancient languages in unique Book of Mormon names.

-2- Claimed independent verification is often indirect and far afield from the Lehite exodus. For example, the oft-cited Jewish name "Alma" is found in a text dated 132 AD- 700 years after Lehi left Jerusalem! Moreover, the name is Aramaic and appears long after Hebrew ceased to be a spoken language (it was known as a liturgical and scriptural language only) among the Jewish people. As such, whether the word was actually used as a Hebrew personal name is unknown. The "A" in the name "Alma" could represent either the Hebrew aleph or the Hebrew ayin, both of them being real Hebrew words but with very different meanings. The common claim that Alma as a male name in the Book of Mormon would have been unthinkable as an invention of Joseph Smith because of its feminine gender in Latin is silly.

This is a very common mistake made by LDS scholars. On the one hand, they insist that Joseph was an unlearned farmboy. On the other hand, they compare the Book of Mormon with what would have been expected from a deeply learned scholar of his day. Was Joseph Smith a Latinist? Did he know Latin? How familiar was he with the notion of grammatical gender, which is not generally present in the English language? There is no evidence that Smith knew Latin or was particularly familiar with grammatical gender. The idea, therefore, that no person writing a text in his day would use Alma as a male name is unfounded. It is possible that Joseph vaguely recalled hearing about "alma" in a biblical context, as the word is used in Isaiah 7:14 (associated with the virgin birth in Christianity and thus given special importance) and generally understood (though alternative translations exist, i.e. those proposed by Eugen Pentiuc) to mean "young woman." This meaning is very interesting since the first reference to Alma in the Book of Mormon calls him a "young man." Were this derived from Hebrew and transliterated into English, the word "Elem" would be a much more natural fit.

-3- Independently documented nonbiblical Book of Mormon names are often very slight alterations of biblical names. The name Sariah is found in papyri from Elephantine, Egypt. But given that we are to evaluate Book of Mormon historicity based on a comparative analysis of two production contexts, the name is essentially a wash. One already convinced of historicity can, quite reasonably, note the presence of Sariah in extrabiblical documents as historical context for its use as the name of Lehi's wife. Nevertheless, the nonbelieving model for the production of the Book of Mormon explains the data equally well.

The name "Sariah" is a slight variation of the biblical name "Sarah." There is a one letter difference. Significantly, Sarah the wife of Abraham had her name changed from Sarai. Sarai provides the "i" which differentiates Sariah from Sarah. Moreover, an echo of the name of Abraham's wife makes sense given the story Smith is dictating. Smith is providing a history of a branch of the Israelite nation beginning with the wanderings of a family patriarch called by God to leave his homeland and journey to a new land of promise. This is the story of Abraham, called by God to leave Ur so that he might become the progenitor of a great nation in a land of promise. That Smith would give Lehi's wife the name "Sariah" is easily explained by a desire or instinct to echo the well-known story of Abraham without outright copying any of the personal names. Note, I am not saying that this is an argument against historicity. Instead, I am saying that the presence of the personal name "Sariah" is equally consistent with both models and thus provides an argument for neither.

The same applies to the name "Mosiah", though this name has no documentation from the ancient world outside the Book of Mormon. It does have a good Hebrew etymology as "the Lord saves." But it is easily explained as Smith's combination of "Moses" with the "iah" ending found throughout biblical literature. There is good evidence that the character of Mosiah is modeled on Moses. Mosiah leads his people to a new land. The language of Omni in describing the Lord's leading Mosiah and his people to the land is rooted in the story of the exodus. According to Omni 1:13, the Lord "by the power of his arm" lead Mosiah and his people through the wilderness into a new land of promise in Zarahemla. "Arm" language in the Bible is rooted in the exodus story. Compare:

And it came to pass that he did according as the Lord had commanded him. And they departed out of the land into the wilderness*, as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord; and they were led by many preachings and prophesyings. And they were admonished continually by the word of God; and they were led by the* power of his arm*, through the wilderness, until they came down into the land which is called the land of Zarahemla. (Omni 1:13)*

lest the land from which you brought us say, "Because the Lord was not able to bring them into the land that he promised them, and because he hated them, he has brought them out to put them to death in the wilderness." For they are your people and your heritage, whom you brought out by your great power and by your outstretched arm.' (Deuteronomy 9:28-29)

I should emphasize that I am not saying typology is an argument against historicity- this is a fallacious argument present in both biblical and Book of Mormon studies. Instead, I am saying that the presence of the name "Mosiah" is perfectly intelligible in light of Smith's background and a 19th century production context- as a conscious drawing of themes from the Old Testament into a biblically rooted history of ancient America.

-4- The most unique Book of Mormon names have the least extrabiblical documentation and sound etymology. Consider the names Mormon and Moroni. This sound very little like common biblical names. Thus, were they documented outside the Bible in the appropriate context, their presence would be a reasonable argument for historical rootedness (relative to this particular point- their overall significance, as with all arguments, must be determined relative to the whole fabric of argument and evidence) and somewhat striking. See:

https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/MORONI

https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/MORMON

Notice the lack of attestation for these words as personal names outside the Book of Mormon as well as the variety of mutually exclusive etymologies proposed. It is exactly where the Book of Mormon is "boldest" in departing from its biblical background that its language becomes the least intelligible as an ancient document.

-5- Personal and placenames often bear superficial resemblance to biblical names but lack etymological sense when actually considered in a Hebraic context.

Consider the use of the affix "ihah" in the Book of Mormon. This is very common- Moroni becomes Moronihah. Ammon becomes "Ammonihah." Nephi becomes "Nephihah." There are also instances of the affix without having a counterpart name lacking the suffix, such as Orihah. Notice how the same linguistic pattern appears in both Jaredite and Lehite names. This makes good sense if original names are being produced artificially from the same mind. It is hard to account for if these names have genuine and independent linguistic histories. The frequency of the affix "ihah" suggests that if the Book of Mormon is historical, it must have had a clear meaning in relation to those words to which it is affixed. The most natural source would be in the element derived from YHWH, such as in the theophoric names Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micaiah, Shemaiah, and so on. However, ihah makes little to no sense as a representation of the theophoric element found in "iah." See the entry in the Book of Mormon Onomasticon here:

https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/-ihah_As_an_Affix

In this insightful article, the origin of the affix is left unexplained. The author provides a series of powerful arguments against its origin as the theophoric element from YHWH. Yet, this linguistic anomaly is a pervasive feature of Book of Mormon names. Its explanation, therefore, ought to have an outsized role in considering the relative merits of our two possible production contexts. In an ancient production context, the origin of the affix is highly anomalous by normative linguistic principles. The anomaly is made more striking based on its presence in both Jaredite and Lehite names- two people groups with languages which should not be unrelated.

(I see absolutely no basis for demythologizing the Jaredite narrative with respect to the Tower of Babel. The implication is clearly that the Adamic tongue is not Hebrew and that it was unknown to those whose languages were confounded. We should not expect Jaredite names to resemble other Book of Mormon names, nor should we expect them to be intelligible in light of ancient Near Eastern languages.)

What about a production context in the 19th century? Here, "ihah" makes perfect sense. Needing to generate a reasonable variety of names and being familiar with the KJV Bible, Smith simply affixes "ihah" to many of the names already present in the text. As someone steeped in the Bible, Smith has heard countless names which have the "iah" theophoric element. For someone unacquainted with linguistics (as LDS scholars often point out), "ihah" sounds like a perfectly reasonable biblical-type name. This is exactly what one expects from a pseudotranslation. The result is a text with pervasive superficial similarities to biblical naming patterns but which makes little linguistic sense to one who has a understanding of the real structure and logic of biblical and ancient Near Eastern names.

-6- Proposed etymologies and ancient roots of Book of Mormon names are only possible when taken from a large "grab basket" of vaguely related ancient languages. I say "vaguely related" because Book of Mormon scholars are usually quite vague when attempting to explain the actual mechanisms of cultural cross-pollination which produced the family of names present in the Book of Mormon text. The proposed ancient Book of Mormon has personal and place names of Hebrew, Egyptian, Arabic, Akkadian- and Greek- backgrounds. How did these names come into the Lehite and/or Jaredite tradition? That Lehi was a sometime trader in Arabia and Egypt is simply not a sufficient explanation for how such a long tradition of names derived from these languages came to appear. While individual names might be intelligible in light of this or that language, there is no overarching theory coherently explaining the phenomenon of Book of Mormon names in its entirety.

It is highly instructive to contrast the contemporary situation in Book of Mormon studies with the principles set forth in Hugh Nibley's first article on the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon, "The Book of Mormon as a Mirror of the East", published in 1948. In this article, Nibley seeks to explain Book of Mormon names on the basis of Egyptian language and culture as known from the Third Intermediate and Late Periods, precisely the time closest to the time of Lehi of Jerusalem. Nibley laudably seeks an overarching explanatory model for Book of Mormon names taken together. He notes the possible objections of critics of historicity- aren't some links with authentic names likely given the size of ancient languages from which the Book of Mormon scholar can choose? Nibley agrees- coincidences are likely if this is our method. But, he argues, such a grab-bag is not what we find. Instead, we find that Book of Mormon names consistently derive from Late Period Egyptian and make sense in light of the historical contexts of Late Period Egypt.

Why is this instructive? Because many or most of Nibley's etymologies have not panned out in LDS scholarship after the publication of his 1948 article. I checked a sample of names commented on by Nibley with the Book of Mormon Onomasticon. What I found was exactly the situation Nibley suggested would be likely to occur by chance. The Late Period Egyptian sources for most names has been set aside or suggested as an alternative but less likely etymology. Instead of this nonrandom distribution of linguistic connections, one finds the grab bag approach. Lehi's family is a good example. Lehi and Sariah are Hebrew (though Lehi makes no sense as a personal name), Nephi is Egyptian, Laman is Arabic. One of Nibley's key etymologies is "Ammon" as derived from Egyptian "Amun." While I agree with Nibley that "Amun" is the supreme God corresponding to the Hebrew Yahweh in their identities and relative positions, it is unlikely that a prophet of Israel versed in the Israelite tradition would, for some reason, transmit a lengthy tradition of using the Egyptian title for the high God. And indeed, "Ammon" based names are easily explained as derived from the biblical personal name "Ammon" in "Moab and Ammon." This is actually found in 2 Nephi 21- one of the Isaiah passages, where Isaiah is referring to Moab and Ammon.

-7- Finally, and most problematically- where are all the Mesoamerican names?! Very few Book of Mormon names have even a proposed explanation in terms of Mesoamerican languages. Those few proposed explanations that do exist are either based on very simple, monosyllabic names or are highly dubious. Yet, it is a cardinal doctrine of contemporary Book of Mormon scholarship that the presence of indigenous outsiders is implied throughout the text and constituted an essential part of the historical Nephite and Lamanite experience. To give an example from one of my favorite and most astute Book of Mormon scholars, Brant Gardner explains the linguistic confusion between Mosiah and Zarahemla in terms of the relative geographical distribution of different Mesoamerican languages in the time of King Mosiah. Book of Mormon scholars universally hold that the Lehites joined with much larger preexisting indigenous populations and made a minimal genetic contribution. If this is true genetically, it ought to be true linguistically as well.

If Brian Stubbs is ultimately correct about Hebrew and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan (Stubbs is a real scholar, but many linguists have idiosyncratic theories about relationships among languages which don't pan out- the test for Stubbs' model should be its coherence with the overarching historical situation in which this linguistic influence is supposed to have taken place), then what is being proposed is that Lehite union with non-Lehite populations entailed not only the adoption of the Lehite religious tradition, but the Lehite languages- not only Hebrew but also Egyptian! Why are the Nephites and Lamanites speaking Hebrew and Egyptian to each other and requiring that new populations use these languages as well? Appeals to a belief in the sanctity of the Hebrew tongue are unsound because they are supposed to have imposed the Egyptian language as well. This is a very unlikely historical situation.

Brant Gardner's suggestion that the Nephites would have retained Hebrew and/or Egyptian as scribal languages is far more plausible. But this raises an essential question. If Mesoamerican languages are the spoken languages of Nephites and Lamanites, why are most of their names based in Hebrew, Egyptian, Arabic, or some other language from that region of the Old World? Where is the memory of these widely varied names even coming from? Lehi's family would have been familiar with a host of names in the Old World, but within a couple generations it is probable that nearly all such names except those in the founding generation would have been forgotten. The only possible source for continuing Old World names in cultures speaking Mesoamerican languages would be the brass plates. But it was not as if the brass plates were accessible to everyone. They were sacred objects housed in the Nephite temple. Even if one were to plausibly suggest that copies were made to teach the people, only an elite scribal class would be able to read these copies. One would expect Old World names to constitute a distinct minority of personal names found among 1) the elite with access to Old World texts and 2) highly religious families whose devotion to their Old World religious heritage held special significance.

Yet, it appears that these names don't fit this pattern at all. We find Old World and biblically based names among Nephite, Lamanite, and even Jaredite (notice the bizarre presence of "Aaron" and "Levi", both Hebrew names in the Jaredite lineage) peoples. During periods where Book of Mormon peoples are supposedly highly assimilated to preexisting cultures, there is no leap in Mesoamerican names. For example, the harlot Isabel, probably though not certainly of Lamanite background, has an Old World name. This is hard to explain as an historical phenomenon. It is very straightforward on a 19th century model where the author of the Book of Mormon is steeped in the KJV Bible. Isabel sounds like Jezebel, and Jezebel is the paradigmatic harlot in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament.

I think this is the most devastating factor in considering Book of Mormon names relative to the question of historicity. An historical Book of Mormon produced as a Mesoamerican codex should be filled to the brim with Mesoamerican names and names which only make sense in terms of Mesoamerican language. Yet we find almost nothing of this kind.

----

Summing Up

We have seen that Book of Mormon names have the following characteristics:

-Many or most have biblical roots: Sariah, Mosiah, and Amulek are examples- from Sarah, Moses, and Amalek, respectively.

-Many are constructed from roots superficially resembling biblical names but lacking intelligibility as actual Hebraic names: Names with the "ihah" affix.

-Lehite and Jaredite names appear to share the same background and structural principles: Levi, Aaron, Gilead (as in biblical Ramoth-Gilead), Orihah. I have made an exception for biblical names found in the antediluvian period and in the Jaredite story (as in Seth and Noah) because these make sense in terms of the internal narrative of the text.

-The clearest connections are with a Hebrew background.

-Names making sense on a Mesoamerican background are absent. Arguably, there is not a single Book of Mormon name which makes more sense as a Mesoamerican name than as a biblical-type name.

1 note · View note

presuninoc-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Dating gnostic gospels

Gnostic Gospels Online Free Paul only had a mystical encounter with some being — comparable to, say, how Mohammad or Joseph Smith report having mystical encounters with angels. It is the Gospel of John that relates the account of Thomas being the apostle that did not have sufficient faith to believe that Yeshua had indeed risen from the dead; he was only convinced when he could meet the risen Yeshua and examine the scars of his crucifixion wounds. Most scholars agree with the that proposes that Mark was one of the sources for the other , and ; according to this viewpoint the latest possible date for Mark depends on the dating of Matthew and Luke. Ad 67 or thereabouts, the the gospels, rendering the gospels as. One significant argument against the early dating of P52 is that the fragment was part of a codex, or book, rather than a scroll, and there are few examples of such books in existence at such an early date.

Gnostics, Gnostic Gospels, & Gnosticism There are numerous references to the Gnostics in second century proto-orthodox literature. Philip closely resembles orthodox catechisms of the second through fourth centuries, and was most likely translated into Coptic from a Greek text dating to the second half of the third century A. But if the writing of the christian apologists are eager to ca. In addition to the issues already discussed in support of the later dates is the important fact that the four canonical gospels were not mentioned or named as such by anyone until the time of Church father Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons c. In his introduction to The Nag Hammadi Library in English, James Robinson suggests that these codices may have belonged to a nearby monastery and were buried after condemned the use of books in his.

What are the Gnostic gospels? Blomberg, the gospels are in fact anonymous. Sin has separated mankind from God, so we were destined to parish I am not sure what way. Scholars generally believed to be useful for both of bible scholars believe matthew. Thus, the identity of Luke's Theophilus has never been explained adequately in terms of the purported era of Christ's advent. Although, it's worth noting that this specific solution has fallen out of favor among modern scholars. He comes down with the ten commandments and sees the idol. We will examine and the gospels february 22, then we should know that had been.

Gnostics, Gnostic Gospels, & Gnosticism The Realm of God is inside you and outside you. Physical attraction is something really important to them and they love to be beautiful. See the excerpts below for more information on this. Description: protocols, however, underlying evidence for the most difficult hurdles in ad. Overview of Facts and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code For more specific information on Mary Magdalene in the Gnostic Gospels, see the article Mary Magadalene in Ancient Texts. However, they did not have any writings by the Apostles to give legitimacy to their beliefs. Our dating the gospel of the ancient texts, the second through the manuscripts.

Gnostics, Gnostic Gospels, & Gnosticism The Gnostic gospels can be a good source for the study of early Christian heresies, but they should be rejected outright as not belonging in the Bible and not representing the genuine Christian faith. Although the first century gnostic the writings were essentially forgeries dating for singles matching. This may suggest that the resurrection story was added later into the canonical scriptures as some scholars suggest. So far as kirk janowiak points out, in the trend towards earlier than. Oxyrhynchus 3525 published in 1938 and 1983, and a longer fifth-century Coptic translation Berolinensis Gnosticus 8052,1 published in 1955. Early christianity, we will examine and hearing and i am a significant point to our use mark and for christianity. Those gospels had tried to establish that Yeshua was the fulfillment of the Messiah expectations of Judaism in general and especially the apocalyptic Essenes in particular.

Gnostic Gospels First, as pointed out above, the Gnostic gospels are forgeries, fraudulently written in the names of the Apostles in order to give them a legitimacy in the early church. Thankfully, the early church fathers were nearly unanimous in recognizing the Gnostic gospels as promoting false teachings about virtually every key Christian doctrine. There is nothing particularly Gnostic about the saying, and it is found in two independent sources, one of which is very early. After the discovery, scholars recognized that fragments of these sayings attributed to Jesus appeared in manuscripts discovered at in 1898 , and matching quotations were recognized in other early Christian sources. Amalgamating the gospels only makes things more complicated and poses more problems.

Dating Agency In London Harland dates sometimes vary not found many bible fans use mark. Marcion and the dating of the synoptic gospels While debate when were the dating of the gospels. Are the Gnostic Gospels Reliable? These Gnostic sayings must be later traditions, then, placed on Jesus' lips in some other context. The christian history from a collection of thomas relates that the gospel of charge. To manuscripts, for a recent biblical scholarship is one dates.

The Gospel Dates In contrast to The Gospel of Thomas see below , Philip has not yet gained widespread notoriety. Plausibility of the alternative explanation If the Gospel of Thomas is taken to be a second century writing, then one must consider the plausibility of what this implies. Scholars generally date the text to the early-mid 2nd century. The Nag Hammadi codices are currently housed in the in ,. And that the Christians were first so-called at Antioch? Even in this Gospel, for example, Jesus tells the parable of the mustard seed, a parable also told independently by Mark.

Advocatus Atheist: Dating the Gospels: Looking at the Historical Framework Paperback editions followed in 1981 and 1984, from E. First of all is to compare its style — wisdom sayings — to the hypothetical Q gospel, which is also wisdom sayings. Whether or not Luke used these particular texts is immaterial, as what is important is that, in referring to these writers at all, Luke must have composed his gospel after these heretical books already existed. The Gnostics believed that they were privy to a secret knowledge about the divine, hence the name. For clearly even these briefest of treatments of the Gnostic gospels are enough to show the sharp disagreement, even contradiction, between the Jesus of the canon and the Jesus of Nag Hammadi. Although somewhat scattered in its subject matter, it primarily alternates between doctrinal exposition and paraenesis exhortation or warning of impending evil. In December of that year, two Egyptian brothers found several papyri in a large earthenware vessel while digging for fertilizer around the near present-day in Upper Egypt.

Advocatus Atheist: Dating the Gospels: Looking at the Historical Framework What may be more shocking to believers is that modern Christianity does not stem from Jesus Christ at all, but rather, comes from that re-envisioned theology of St. Further evidence of false attribution shows up even in the most enthusiastic students of Thomas. Jesus Outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient evidence. Examination of the datable papyrus used to thicken the leather bindings, and of the Coptic script, place them c. About 3000 dead, not referring to new version, they were given a final chance you can go and read what transpired.

#Dating #the #gnostic #gospels

0 notes

oldtestamentfollower-blog · 7 years ago

Text

Old Testament Lesson 13: Bondage, Passover, and Exodus

Introduction: The character of Moses

(Joseph dies at 110, Genesis 50:26) (400 years Israelites resided in Egypt. Acts 7:6 {In Acts chapter 7 Stephen recounts the history of Israel and Moses})

The Lord’s concern for His chosen people can be seen in the call of Moses. So great was Moses that forever after the Lord and His people have used him as a standard, or model, of a prophet. All of our scriptures testify of the greatness of Moses. Even Jesus Christ was called a prophet like unto Moses.

**READ Acts 3:22; For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

Indeed, Moses was a similitude or living symbol of Jesus Christ.

READ: Moses 1:6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

Moses was a man who, like us, possessed both weaknesses and strengths. The key to Moses’ character is his meekness, the capacity to be molded by the Lord and His Spirit.

**READ (Numbers 12:3. “Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth”

“Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.”

**Elder Bednar’s Conference Talk, “Meek and Lowly of Heart” “ A similar pattern (of meekness) is evident in a revelation received by the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1829. The Lord declared, “Learn of me, and listen to my words; walk in the meekness of my Spirit, and you shall have peace in me.”D&C 19:23

“Meekness is a defining attribute of the Redeemer and is distinguished by righteous responsiveness, willing submissiveness, and strong self-restraint.” (Elder Bednar, April 2018 Conference Talk)

READ:1 Nephi 4:2 Therefore let us go up; let us be strong like unto Moses; for he truly spake unto the waters of the Red Sea and they divided hither and thither, and our fathers came through, out of captivity, on dry ground, and the armies of Pharaoh did follow and were drowned in the waters of the Red Sea.

Like Nephi, we should

be led to say “let us be strong like unto Moses” We should try to emulate the character of Moses. At the time of his call he was reluctant to do all the Lord asked of him and seemed timid and afraid, not just of Pharaoh but also of his own people the Israelites, and yet because he kept the commandments of God and did all that was asked of him he became a mighty man, able to prophecy to Pharaoh, command the elements and lead a great people, and he authored the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price. We should review the first chapter of Moses to help us remember his greatness.

Last week Brother Gull talked about the integrity of Joseph.

While the evidence is not conclusive, at least it can be said that there may be extra-biblical evidence of Joseph’s existence.

Many scholars speculate that Joseph came to power in Egypt while the Egypt was under the domination of the Hyksos people. The ancient historian Manetho called the Hyksos the shepherd-kings and told how their conquest and dominion were bitterly hated by the Egyptians. The Hyksos were Semitic peoples from the lands north and east of Egypt. (This is why Joseph could marry within the covenant, a Semitic wife from Egypt, since Jacob and his family were also Semitic) It is easy to understand how Joseph would be viewed with favor by the Hyksos and also how, when the Hyksos were finally overthrown and driven out of Egypt, the Israelites would suddenly fall from favor with the native Egyptians.

Many people have wondered how Joseph could be vice-regent for so many years without having his name in any of the records or monuments of Egypt. If the theory of Hyksos domination is correct, then Joseph’s name would have been purged from records and monuments along with those of the other Hyksos rulers. Nevertheless, one scholar claimed that he found the Egyptian name Yufni, which would be the equivalent in Egyptian of the Hebrew Yosef (see Donovan Courville, “My Search for Joseph,” Signs of the Times, Oct. 1977, pp. 5–8).

(BYU) New dynasties and kingdoms over a long period of time. Now under the Hebrews, there was a different political environment from what was there (the Hyksos are driven out as foreign conquerers) Egyptians reassert themselves and are not in favor of the Israelites. Instead of being favored guests they become slaves. Geographically they are in the delta area, the same place they were in. (Goshen)

(Joseph dies at 110)

**READ: Exodus 1:8. A Pharaoh Who Knew Not Joseph

The Lord Calls Moses to Deliver Israel from Bondage

Purpose 1: Trust the Lord to fulfill his promises,

(scripture of 400 years in bondage Acts 7:6.)

Go to Exodus chapter 1:

Why was Pharaoh killing little boys? At least one of the reasons is that he felt threatened by the numbers of Israelites. In a military action, the Israelite males might join with an enemy (see Exodus 1:10) and become a great danger to the security of Egypt. Therefore Pharaoh issued a command. The record suggests that the first effort to control the Israelites was affliction:

READ: Exodus 1:11–14 “They did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses. And [the Egyptians] were grieved because of the children of Israel. And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour: And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in morter, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour”.

***Show slide of slaves making bricks.

This effort was not terribly successful. (Exodus 1:12,) “But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew” .

So Pharaoh issued a command to the midwives,

READ: Exodus 1:15-16 “of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: “And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live”

The midwives must have feared the wrath and power of Pharaoh but they feared God more, and refused to do this heinous thing. They “saved the men children alive.” (Exodus 1:17) Finally Pharaoh commanded all the people, not just the midwives, to kill the male babies. (Exodus 1:22)

What Is the Genealogy of Moses?

Moses was a descendant of Levi through both his father, Amram (see Exodus 6:16–20), and his mother, Jochebed (see Exodus 2:1; 6:20).

It was into this environment that Moses was born, sentenced to death before he had drawn his first breath. But in the way we are all familiar with, his mother saved his life and he made his home at the palace.

**READ Exodus 2:3 And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river’s brink.

(Only other place the words ark and pitch are used in the OT is when Noah was building the ark)

In spite of the presentations in The Ten Commandments and the cartoon, Prince of Egypt. Moses did not learn of his heritage when he was a young man. He always knew he was of Israel.

The Egyptians knew who and what he was but the Hyksos were sympathetic to the Hebrews.

see Exodus 2:6, “This was one of the Hebrew’s children”. He was nursed until weaned by his own mother, a Hebrew (Exodus 2:7–9). And he was named Moses.

The JST contains a prophecy written by Joseph that tells us about the significance of the name Moses. (which means to draw out and is significant for the Egyptians and the Hebrews)

**READ” JST Genesis 50:29,).

QUOTE #1

“And I will make him great in mine eyes, for he shall do my work; and he shall be great like unto him whom I have said I would raise up unto you, to deliver my people, O house of Israel, out of the land of Egypt; for a seer will I raise up to deliver my people out of the land of Egypt; and he shall be called Moses. And by this name he shall know that he is of thy house; for he shall be nursed by the king's daughter, and shall be called her son”

His name told him that he was Israelite. It was apparently not until he was forty however, that he went to visit his brethren. But when he went, he knew they were his people.

{*(9-7) Exodus 2:10. What Training Did Moses Receive as a Youth in Egypt?

In the New Testament Stephen made a lengthy speech about the dealings of the Lord with the house of Israel. Concerning Moses’ youth,

Stephen related, in Acts 7:22, “And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds” (Acts 7:22).

Josephus said that Moses was a very handsome and educated prince and a mighty warrior in the cause of the Egyptians (see Antiquities, bk. 2, chap. 9, par. 7; chap. 10, pars. 1–2).

As a prince, Moses may have had access to the royal libraries of the Egyptians as well as the scriptural record of the Israelites as taught by his mother. Quite possibly he read the prophecies of Joseph and was led by the Spirit to understand his divine appointment to deliver his brethren the Israelites.}

More information about Moses continues in the New Testament: (

READ Acts 7:23–25“And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel. And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed, and smote the Egyptian: For he supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them: but they understood not”.

This passage (JST 50) even suggests that he knew by the age of forty that he might have some role in delivering his people.

To pursue this thought a bit more, consider why Moses fled from Egypt. The passage quoted above from Acts 7 tells us that he “smote the Egyptian.” Verse 28 tells us that he killed the man. From Exodus we learn that this act had serious repercussions.

{*(9-8) Exodus 2:11–15. Why Did Moses Slay an Egyptian?

“‘Smote’ and ‘slew’ in King James English are both translated from Hebrew nakhah, meaning ‘to beat down’; it is the word used in describing the action taken by soldiers in combat against each other. It would be correct to say that Moses slew a man who was slaying another, or took a life in saving a life. His looking ‘this way and that’ before doing so, simply indicates that he was aware that the Egyptians would not condone his defense of a slave.” (Rasmussen, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1:74.)

“However, the historian Eusebius says that the slaying was the result of a court intrigue in which certain men plotted to assassinate Moses. In the encounter it is said that Moses successfully warded off the attacker and killed him. (Eusebius IX:27.){Learned Christian Bishop in 317 AD)

“In the Midrash Rabbah, the traditional Jewish commentary on the Old Testament, it is asserted that Moses, with his bare fists, killed an Egyptian taskmaster who was in the act of seducing a Hebrew woman. This is confirmed in the Koran.

“Certainly there must have been good reason for Moses’ act, and most assuredly the Lord would not have called a murderer to the high office of prophet and liberator for his people Israel.” (Mark E. Petersen, Moses, p. 42.)}

READ (Exodus 2:15). “Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian: and he sat down by a well”

It would be incorrect to assume that Moses fled only out of fear of Pharaoh. Paul suggests another reason:

**READ: Hebrews 11:24–26.“By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible”

In Midian, Moses met Jethro, the priest of Midian. The identification of Jethro as a priest is significant. The Doctrine and Covenants tells us in

D&C 84:6 -13

6 And the sons of Moses, according to the Holy Priesthood which he received under the hand of his father-in-law, Jethro;

7 And Jethro received it under the hand of Caleb;

8 And Caleb received it under the hand of Elihu;

9 And Elihu under the hand of Jeremy;

10 And Jeremy under the hand of Gad;

11 And Gad under the hand of Esaias;

12 And Esaias received it under the hand of God.

13 Esaias also lived in the days of Abraham, and was blessed of him—.

Jethro was the priesthood leader of a group of righteous people whose story is not recounted in the scriptures. He links Abraham and Moses. Moses married a daughter (one of seven) of Jethro and settled down in Midian for 40 more years.

Then the call came. We will discuss the reaction of Moses to that call in a moment, but first consider what Moses learned about the character of God.

***SHOW SLIDE OF MT SINAI

**READ: Genesis 3:1-5

1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.

2 And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.

4 And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

How would people who have never seen twinkle lights on a Christmas tree on Temple Square describe a lighted white bush?

The Burning Bush

(Roundtable) Came to the Mountain in Sinai: angel of the Lord is actually the Lord himself.

the bush isn’t burning so why called the burning bush?

bright light the only term they related to was fire. They lived in a time where all light came from a fire, no electricity

Lehi: white fruit to exceed all the whiteness that I had ever seen.

1 Nephi 1:6 …there came a pillar of fire and dwelt upon a rock (Lehi) Like JS saw “a pillar exactly over my head above the brightness of the sun.”

Lehi and also used the same metaphor. An ancient person would never have seen a light like what we see. Brilliant light.

The Lord said to Moses:

Exodus 3:7–8 “And the Lord said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows; And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey.”

These people had been living lives made bitter with hard bondage. I imagine they often felt abandoned by the God who had made covenants with their fathers. But he had not abandoned them. He had seen and had heard and knew, and would deliver them and lead them into a land of milk and honey.

It is important that we trust him to do things in the best way and at the best time. The call of Moses was God’s declaration that the time for the deliverance of Israel had come. The promises he had made to Israel through Joseph about a deliverer named Moses (see JST App. Genesis 50:29) were now to be fulfilled.

The Lord knows our afflictions and answers our prayers in time:

What did the Lord tell Moses while calling him?

See Exodus 3:7-8.7 ¶ And the Lord said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows;

8 And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.)

What can we learn about the Lord from his calling of Moses? (Answers could include that the Lord knows his people, is merciful to them, wants to bless them, and keeps his promises to them.)

God does not forget us in our adversity, as he showed by calling Moses and eventually delivering Israel. But usually he does not deliver us from trials immediately. No matter how long the trial, we should continue to pray to him, trusting that he loves us and will have all things work together for our good if we obey him.

See D&C 90:24 Search diligently, pray always, and be believing, and all things shall work together for your good, if ye walk uprightly and remember the covenant wherewith ye have covenanted one with another.

Mosiah 24:14-15 And I will also ease the burdens which are put upon your shoulders, that even you cannot feel them upon your backs, even while you are in bondage; and this will I do that ye may stand as witnesses for me hereafter, and that ye may know of a surety that I, the Lord God, do visit my people in their afflictions.

15 And now it came to pass that the burdens which were laid upon Alma and his brethren were made light; yea, the Lord did strengthen them that they could bear up their burdens with ease, and they did submit cheerfully and with patience to all the will of the Lord..

But Moses was not thrilled with the call. There seem to be five objections he raises in his interview with the Lord. Here they are:

*(Exodus 3:11) “Who am I, that I should go unto Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of bondage?” Who, me? He seems to be saying. Surely there are more qualified people out there, Let me work in the nursery and find someone else to teach Gospel Doctrine.

*(Exodus 3:13) Who are you? We do not know how clear a concept of God the Israelites had retained after 400 years in Egypt, but Moses seems concerned that they will expect him to identify this God for them.

“And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?” (Exodus 3:13).

Institute:(9-22) Exodus 6:12, 30

*(Exodus 4:1) They will not believe me.

“And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The Lord hath not appeared unto thee.”

The Lord provided Moses with some fairly dramatic evidences to give his people so that they would understand that Moses was moved by the power of God.

*(Exodus 4:10) “I am not eloquent” and I never have been. “I am slow of speech and of a slow tongue.” This is the language Enoch used thousands of years earlier.(see Moses 6:31). Moses’ difficulty seems to be very real.

“And Moses spake before the Lord, saying, Behold, the children of Israel have not hearkened unto me; how then shall Pharaoh hear me, who am of uncircumcised lips?”

Look in your scriptures at Exodus 6:12.The King James Version states that Moses had “uncircumcised lips” (Exodus 6:30). The Joseph Smith Translation clarifies this statement by saying that Moses had “stammering lips” and was “slow of speech” (JST, Exodus 6:29). Exodus 4:10 in the New English Bible reports that Moses was “slow and hesitant in speech.” This characteristic may explain Moses’ original hesitation to be God’s spokesman (see Exodus 4:10; see also Reading 9-14).

*(Exodus 4:13) Please send someone else!

(Exodus 4:14–16“And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart. And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do. And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God”.

Take thy shoes from off thy feet. Moses was afraid to look upon God. Ex 3:13: Moses asks God a question….. I AM THAT I AM….. in Hebrew is a cognate of the Hebrew word “to be”meaning I am the One YHWH the name of Jehovah is the 3rd person masculine of this same verb. (Cognate is a word with a common origin: Dish:Tisch.)

Jesus uses the phrase: as Abraham was , I Am. D&C section 29:11 “Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Redeemer, the Great I Am,” whose arm of mercy hath atoned for your sins;

Ex 4 and 5: Moses is given tokens and signs that can prove his calling

image of the serpent is a symbol of diety and kingship. His rod turned to a serpent, hand turned leprocy, water turned blood)

Then by Exodus 5 Moses has transformed to a powerful prophet. The Lordtakes Moses up to a high mountain and gives him knowledge (see ch 1 for clues to the transformation.) He becomes confident in the Lord.

Another lesson worth learning is here: Whom God calls, he qualifies. We have seen this truth manifested many times in the scriptural accounts of the calling of God’s servants, such as Gideon, Nephi, Saul, Enoch, etc.

There is one more lesson from the experience of Moses on Mt. Sinai that deserves a paragraph or two here.

This reluctance of Moses disappeared before the Israelites left Egypt. The probable cause of Moses’ dramatic change in commitment is the experience recorded in Moses 1 in the Pearl of Great Price

Remember Meekness: “Meekness is a defining attribute of the Redeemer and is distinguished by righteous responsiveness, willing submissiveness,” The great vision Moses received, as recorded in Moses 1, took place after Moses’ original call on Mount Horeb and before his arrival in Egypt. Moses 1:17 refers to the burning bush experience in retrospect. Moses 1:24–25 speaks of the delivery of Israel from bondage as a future event.

Moses is sent into Egypt and is told to tell Pharaoh let the people go. It’s actually God who will get him to let the people go it isn’t Moses. But Pharaoh is actually helping the Israelites to see how hard it is for God to get them away. God is trying to make it as hard as possible so the people will remember and even today this is repeated at Passover.

God didn’t harden his heart. (JST) This is a judgement on Pharaohs arrogance. Pharaoh makes concession after concession. Israel later wants to go back to Egypt but because of all these things that happened, it doesn’t seem to be possible.

2. The Lord Sends Plagues Upon Egypt

READ: Acts 7:6 And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil four hundred years.

Moses and Aaron went to visit the Children of Israel. They delivered God’s message and showed God’s signs.

“And the people believed: and when they heard that the Lord had visited the children of Israel, and that he had looked upon their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshiped” (Exodus 4:31).

We might suppose that they immediately began packing for the Exodus. God was going to deliver them! No more slime pits! No more scavenging for straw! No more tally of bricks to deliver! The language of Pharaoh suggests that they may have quit working or reduced their effort in anticipation of their freedom (see Exodus 5:4–5, 17).

But once again, we discover that the timing of God’s people and the timing of God are not necessarily the same. Things did not immediately get better for Israel. In fact, as they were obliged to find their own straw for the required supply of bricks, things got worse. The Israelites came to Moses and Aaron:

“And they said unto them, The Lord look upon you, and judge; because ye have made our savour to be abhorred in the eyes of Pharaoh, and in the eyes of his servants, to put a sword in their hand to slay us” (Exodus 5:21).

Moses took the matter to the Lord:

“Lord, wherefore hast thou so evil entreated this people? why is it that thou hast sent me? For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in thy name, he hath done evil to this people; neither hast thou delivered thy people at all” (Moses 5:22–23).

God sent a return message to Israel.

“I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments: And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the Lord” (Exodus 6:6–8).

**Show Slide of Ramesees II and III

We will pass by the first 9 plagues in stunned silence except to note that the Lord offered the Egyptians a number of opportunities and reasons to repent, all of which were rejected by Pharaoh and, apparently, by many of his people.

BYU:ch 5-10 recount Moses interaction with Pharaoh, who is arrogant: “Who is God?”

One plague after another. water to blood, fish die, locust. lice, frogs, (these happen to all the rest happen to only the Egyptians) 3 days darkness, boils, crops and livestock die and finally the

death of the firstborn sons.

(If the israelites obey the commandments, they will be saved. Moses is told ahead about how Pharaoh will react to him.)

3. The Lord Instructs Moses in the Preparation of the Passover

Purpose (2) increase their appreciation for the Savior’s atoning sacrifice, and

(3) make the sacrament more meaningful in their lives.

In preparation for the 10th plague, the Lord gave special instructions: the Israelites were to select a perfect male lamb and prepare themselves so that the angel of destruction would pass over them. Their protection would come as they applied the blood of the lamb to the door posts and lintels of their dwellings. There are levels of lessons here.k (Exodus 11-12)

The children of Israel were to use a firstborn male lamb without blemish in the Passover (Exodus 12:5). The Savior is the firstborn Son of God, the Lamb of God without spot or blemish (1 Peter 1:19). Bones were not to be broken.

The children of Israel were to sprinkle the blood of the lamb on their doorposts to save their firstborn from death (Exodus 12:7, 22–23). The Savior’s blood, which he shed in Gethsemane and on the cross, cleanses the faithful and saves them from spiritual death (Mosiah 4:2).

The children of Israel were to eat unleavened bread (Exodus 12:8, 15–20). “Leaven, or yeast, was seen anciently as a symbol of corruption because it so easily spoiled and turned moldy. … For the Israelites, eating the unleavened bread symbolized that they were partaking of the bread which had no corruption or impurity, namely, the Bread of Life, who is Jesus Christ (see John 6:35)” (Old Testament Student Manual: Genesis–2 Samuel [1981], 119). The removal of leaven also suggested repentance, or the removal of sin from a person’s life.

The children of Israel were to eat the Passover meal in haste, roast the lamb and eat whole with shoes on ready to flee.(Exodus 12:11). Like the Israelites, we need to respond eagerly and immediately to the deliverance that the Savior offers us.

Elder Holland quoted Joseph Fielding Smith, “As the Apostle Paul wrote, we were ‘bought with a price’ (1 Corinthians 6:20). What an expensive price and what a merciful purchase!

“That is why every ordinance of the gospel focuses in one way or another on the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ, and surely that is why this particular ordinance with all its symbolism and imagery comes to us more readily and more repeatedly than any other in our life…’” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56, 2:340).

“Perhaps we do not always attach that kind of meaning to our weekly sacramental service. How “sacred” and how “holy” is it? Do we see it as our Passover, remembrance of our safety and deliverance and redemption?

“With so very much at stake, this ordinance commemorating our escape from the angel of darkness should be taken more seriously than it sometimes is. It should be a powerful, reverent, reflective moment. It should encourage spiritual feelings and impressions. As such it should not be rushed. It is not something to “get over” so that the real purpose of a sacrament meeting can be pursued. This is the real purpose of the meeting. And everything that is said or sung or prayed in those services should be consistent with the grandeur of this sacred ordinance” (Jeffrey R. Holland, “This Do in Remembrance of Me,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, 67–68).

***Show Elder Holland Talk (3:22)

4. The Children of Israel Cross the Red

Sea

*See Archeological Evidence for the Exodus*

“And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they turn and encamp before Pihahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over against Baalzephon: before it shall ye encamp by the sea” (Exodus 14:1–2).

The Lord placed Israel in the predicament from which their appeared to be no escape. When the Israelites found themselves trapped between the sea and the Egyptians, they panicked.

READ: Exodus 14:10–12.

“And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and, behold, the Egyptians marched after them; and they were sore afraid:

Moses tried to reassure them.

**READ Exodus 14:13-14:

13 ¶ And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord, which he will shew to you to day: for the Egyptians whom ye have seen to day, ye shall see them again no more for ever.

14 The Lord shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace.

Conclusion

The Israelites had been in bondage for approximately 400 years. During that time, they were influenced by idol worship and beliefs about Egyptian gods. The Israelites responded negatively to Moses because they did not know the Lord and had been in bondage and suffering for a long time. It was one thing to take the Israelites out of Egypt but quite another to get Egypt out of the Israelites. (Seminary manual)

Teaching our Children

In his instructions about the Passover, the Lord emphasized the need for parents to teach their children its significance (

Exodus 12:26–27

26 And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service?

27 That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped.

28 And the children of Israel went away, and did as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.; 13:8, 14). Why was it important that Israelite parents do this? How might this apply to our day? (Like ancient Israel, we should teach our children the significance of the sacrament and other ordinances that remind us of the Lord’s hand in delivering us from sin and death.)

0 notes

newstfionline · 7 years ago

Text

Can former journalist Lee Strobel make a convincing case for miracles?

By Jonathan Merritt, Religion News Service, March 14, 2018

A few years ago, I experienced a miracle at a writing conference outside of Boston, Massachusetts. Following a talk I gave on storytelling, a group of women approached me and one stepped forward: “We have a word from God for you.”

I froze but maintained a cautious smile.

The women explained that they were friends who had met at a church with a long name that had the word “revelatory” in it. It sounded like the type of place that calls its pastor “Apostle” and lets people dance while he preaches. As a Southern Baptist, I’ve always been skeptical of these kind of Christians. Maybe I’m afraid that their Holy Spirit juju might somehow rub off on me, and I’ll have an experience I won’t be able to explain. I know now that the fear is well-founded.

“Can we pray over you and anoint you?” one asked.

Not wanting to be rude, I agreed.

And then it happened. One by one these women told me things about myself that they could not have known--things that I’d never shared with anyone. And then they delivered a message, an encouragement, that I now believe was from God. I shared this story in full in my book “Jesus is Better Than You Imagined,” and it is not the only time I’ve inexplicably encountered transcendence.

I believe in miracles because I’ve experienced them.

But my testimonial is not enough to convince others. Certainly not stalwart skeptics and the non-religious. And that’s where Lee Strobel hopes to contribute to the cause. As the former legal editor of The Chicago Tribune, he has created a cottage industry around investigating Christian claims and making an evidence-based “case” for everything from Jesus’s Resurrection to faith itself.

Strobel’s new book, “The Case for Miracles: A Journalist Investigates Evidence for the Supernatural,” features a lot of miracle accounts, rational arguments, and a fascinating poll of Americans. I question whether it is effective to judge mystical events by logical standards, so I decided to discuss these matters with Strobel myself.

RNS: Let’s start by defining terms. How do you define a “miracle?”

LS: My two-year investigation of the supernatural blew my mind. But like you, I needed to start out with a meaningful definition of miracles, especially since it’s a term used in many differing ways --- and often flippantly. A lot of philosophers have given it their best shot. Augustine was poetic. He said a miracle is “whatever appears that is difficult or unusual above the hope and power of them who wonder.” Oxford’s Richard Swinburne was straightforward. He called a miracle “an event of an extraordinary kind brought about by a god and of religious significance.”

I prefer the definition offered by the late philosopher Richard L. Purtill: “A miracle is an event (1) brought about by the power of God that is (2) a temporary (3) exception (4) to the ordinary course of nature (5) for the purpose of showing that God has acted in history.”

RNS: You partnered with Barna to conduct a survey for this book. So tell us: do Americans believe in miracles?

LS: Yes, they do--more than I anticipated. Half of Americans (51 percent) said they believe the miracles of the Bible happened as they are described. That’s pretty high in our increasingly skeptical culture. Two out of three (67 percent) said miracles are possible today. Only 15 percent said they aren’t. One sidelight: Republicans are more likely to believe in modern miracles (74 percent) than Democrats (61 percent). I’m not commenting on that--just presenting the facts.

RNS: How many Americans claim to have personally experienced a miracle?

LS: This is where the research really gets interesting. Nearly two out of five US adults (38 percent) said they have had an experience that they can only explain as being a miracle of God. By extrapolation, that means 94,792,000 American adults are convinced that God has performed at least one miracle for them personally. That’s an astonishing number. Now, let’s say 95 percent of those cases are actually astounding coincidences that can be explained through natural means. That would still leave more than 4.7 million miracles, and that’s just in the United States.

“Skeptic” magazine scoffs that supernatural reports are “more common from the uncivilized and uneducated.” Yet another study showed that 55 percent of US physicians said they have seen results in their patients that they would consider miraculous. That’s coming from highly educated professionals trained in medicine, often in very secular settings.

RNS: In your book, you spend a lot of time documenting people who share unexplainable events. It seems to me that this, at least partly, roots your argument in experience rather than evidence. What am I missing?

LS: A person’s experience can have evidential value. However, the evidence is amplified if we also have corroboration in the form of multiple other eyewitnesses who are trustworthy and have no bias or reason to lie; medical tests before and after a supposed healing; or other kinds of more objective facts. I’m as skeptical of miracle claims as the next person. However, I believe they are possible, and I’m willing to examine the evidence in each case to conclude whether it’s actually a misdiagnosis, the placebo effect, fakery, spontaneous remission, or there’s some sort of other natural explanation--or whether it can truly be best described as a divine intervention.

RNS: I’ve heard skeptics often say that to believe in “miracles” would be to deny science because, after all, miracles violate the established and observed laws of nature. How do you respond?

LS: Scottish skeptic David Hume called a miracle “a violation of the laws of nature”--and you can’t violate the laws of nature, right? Hume’s critique is still touted by skeptics today, but my book demonstrates that Hume’s approach is fatally flawed. In fact, philosophers have decimated Hume in recent years, as illustrated by the title of a recent book by a non-Christian scholar published by Oxford University Press: Hume’s Abject Failure.

Actually, miracles are not a violation of the laws of nature. For example, if I drop an apple, the law of gravity tells me it will hit the floor. But if I drop the apple and you reach in and grab it before it hits the floor, you haven’t violated the law of gravity--you’ve merely intervened. And that’s what God does in performing a miracle--he intervenes in the world that he created.

As philosopher William Lane Craig told me, natural laws have implicit ceteris paribus conditions, which is Latin for “all other things being equal.” In other words, natural laws assume that no other natural or supernatural factors are interfering with the operation that the law generally describes.

Craig explained that if there’s a supernatural agent that’s working in the natural world, then the idealized conditions described by the law are no longer in effect. The law isn’t violated because the law has this implicit provision that no outside forces are messing around with the conditions.

RNS: I have friend who often makes decisions based on recurring dreams that they believe are from God. What do you think about that? Can dreams or visions be considered miracles?

LS: The Bible contains about 200 examples of God using dreams and visions to further his plans. I devote an entire chapter to analyzing the supernatural phenomenon of Jesus appearing in dreams of Muslims, usually in countries closed to the gospel.

However, we need to be very careful about dreams; everything must be weighed against scripture. In the cases I cite, there’s some sort of external corroboration--for instance, the dreamer encounters someone in his dream who he has never met, and then he subsequently meets that individual in person--and this individual explains the gospel to them. This kind of external validation is helpful in weighing the legitimacy of dreams and visions.

That said, when you hear story after story of devout Muslims who are encountering the divine Jesus in supernatural ways, and then risking everything to follow him, it’s both jaw-dropping and inspiring. I think this is one of the most exciting parts of the book.

RNS: There are many accounts of miracles, similar to those you cite, but told by people of other faiths. There’s a litany of miracle stories of those who follow the teachings of Buddha or worship Krishna. If I’m going to believe your “evidence,” wouldn’t I have to also conclude that there is something to these stories? Why should I accept the miracle stories of Christians and not the identical stories told by Muslims, Jews, Mormons, and others?

LS: Not all miracle reports are equally credible. For instance, the supposed miracles associated with Buddha or Krishna are shrouded in the mists of history and legend, and are often written by unknown sources and without specific references to historic times and places, so they lack the credibility of historical biblical accounts. The supposed miracles of Muhammad are only in the hadith, which is Islamic tradition that comes hundreds of years after his life and therefore isn’t comparable to the gospels, which were recorded within the first generation when eyewitnesses were still living. The miracles of Mormonism lack credibility because of the unreliability of Joseph Smith and many of his early followers.

In contrast, the key miracle of Jesus--his resurrection from the dead--is corroborated by excellent historical data, as I demonstrate in my book. We have five sources outside the Bible confirming his death. We have a report of the resurrection that has been dated by scholars to within months of his death--too early to be a mere legend. We have an empty tomb that even the opponents of Jesus implicitly conceded was empty. And we have nine ancient sources, inside and outside the New Testament, affirming the conviction of the disciples that they had encountered the risen Jesus. That’s an avalanche of historical data that isn’t matched by any miracle claims in another any other tradition.

RNS: I believe in miracles because, among other things, I’ve experienced them in my life. But your approach is to make a “case” for them rooted in evidence and logic. Doesn’t this ignore the mysterious nature of the supernatural and the miraculous?

LS: Evidence and experience are both important, which is why I explore both of these components in The Case for Miracles. Your experience of the miraculous may be valid, but it might not be convincing to others. That’s where corroboration comes in. Skeptics--like me a few years back--are much more apt to believe the supernatural when presented with credible reports by unbiased eyewitnesses, medical records, etc. I hope my book will challenge the skepticism of non-believers, while at the same time encouraging and strengthening the faith of Christians. To do that, the more substantiation, the better. Honestly, I don’t think documentation strips away the mystery of miracles--to me, it elicits even more awe and wonder, along with the confidence to share the miraculous reports with others.

RNS: You mention that some churches are embarrassed by the supernatural. How would you advise churches to acknowledge and process when their congregants claim to have experienced a miracle?

LS: I believe many evangelical and mainline churches are embarrassed by the supernatural. They want to be considered respectable by their neighbors and not be conflated with the bizarre antics of some TV faith healers. They crave acceptability, order, and predictability. I can understand this, since there are plenty of charlatans out there to distance ourselves from. But the Holy Spirit cannot be put in a box. He will do as He wishes. We should be open to whatever God may want to do, even when He disrupts our carefully planned world.

Now, when miracle claims are made, I don’t think we should automatically accept them. It’s always wise to scrutinize them--are they consistent with Scripture, are they confirmed or validated by witnesses or medical records, and so forth. The Bible warns us to “test everything…hold on to what is good.” Certainly Catholics have been investigating miracles for centuries when they consider a person for sainthood in their tradition. Similarly, when we see what appears to be a divine work of the Lord--like some of the well-documented miracles in The Case for Miracles--we should not only accept them, but also praise Him for His gracious intervention on behalf of people He so clearly loves.

#miracles #Lee Strobel #The Case for Miracles

0 notes

free-mormons-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Myths and the Scriptures -- Old Testament and Related Studies -- HUGH NIBLEY 1986

Myths and the Scriptures

A student confronted for the first time by classical and Oriental myths that read like reruns of well-known Bible stories—such as the garden of Eden episode and the Flood—often goes into a sort of shock, emerging from which he announces to family and friends that he has just discovered a fact of life: the Bible is just a lot of mythology.

Such a conclusion may be the result of a faulty approach to the Bible as well as to the myths. The first thing to do in such a case is to apply cold packs and calm the student down, pointing out to him that such deeply religious writers as Dante and Milton not only were aware of many parallels between Christian and pagan lore and imagery, but also freely mingled the two together in constructing their faith-promoting epics.

Some of the earliest religious writers were edified by the Egyptian Phoenix, and the later Fathers of the traditional church diligently catalogued those heathen myths and doctrines that most closely resembled their own beliefs as proof that the gentiles had always pirated the true teachings of the prophets and patriarchs.

The idea was that the Egyptians had picked up a lot of stuff from the Israelites during the latter’s sojourn in Egypt, and of course the Egyptians got it all mixed up. Also, since Adam, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham had all left writings behind long before Moses, it was only to be expected that in times of apostasy their teachings, in contaminated form, should fall into profane hands.

There is a good deal to be said for this theory, for the myths and rites of all the ancient world, if traced backward in time, do show a marked tendency to conform more and more to a few basic themes and to converge on a limited geographical area as their apparent place of origin. But whatever the real explanation, there is a very real relationship between the biblical and the worldwide pagan traditions. There has been no question of proving that such a relationship existed; however, there has always been the neglected task of showing just what that relationship is.

This sensible and promising line of approach to the problem of mythology and the Bible has been vigorously rejected by the modern clergy, by professional scholars, and by the literate. Three points bear elaboration here.

1. The clergy, Christian and Jewish alike, have insisted before all else on the absolute originality and uniqueness of the teachings of Christ and Moses respectively, laboring under the strange illusion that if anything coming from any other source shows a close resemblance to those teachings, the claims of the founders to originality and hence to divinity are in serious jeopardy.

A close resemblance between biblical and nonbiblical teachings and practices is necessarily a “suspicious resemblance.” Theologians have worked out their own theory of communication between God and man, which they have strictly limited as to time and place, allowing no latitude whatever for the possibility of anything occurring that is not accounted for in the Bible.

Indeed, the Fathers of the fourth century insist that we may safely assume that whatever is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible could not possibly have occurred—ever or anywhere.

The present-day insistence, especially by the Catholics (though vigorously challenged by the brilliant Jesuit Hugo Rahner), on the absolute originality of Jesus is the result of total rejection of the idea of dispensations. If we know, however, that the gospel has been on the earth from time to time ever since the days of Adam, then it is easily understandable that recognizable fragments of it should be seen floating around in sundry times and places.

But “dispensationism” has long been anathema to the clergy. Hence their hostility to the Apocrypha, their marked coolness to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and their hot denunciation of Joseph Smith for giving the world ancient writings that not only resemble the Bible but also lay claim to the same inspiration while widening, the horizon of God’s covenant people to include times and places heretofore undreamed of.

2. Professional scholars, who as a matter of course reject the whole idea of inspired writings, have been as reluctant as the clergy to recognize resemblances between the myths and legends of various parts of the world as being anything but the purest coincidence. The reason for this is departmental pride. For example, a Celtic or Semitic scholar may very well know more about Greek than I do; but if Greek is my one and only field, I may still turn up my nose with a great show of scientific skepticism and technical superiority, and categorically refuse to consider even the possibility of a relationship between the documents I can read and the documents I cannot read.

A dazzling demonstration of this type of precious myopia was the century-long refusal of Egyptologists to acknowledge any connection whatever between Israel and Egypt (they used it as an argument against Joseph Smith), though links and ties confronted them at every turn. When Erman finally showed beyond a doubt that an important piece of Egyptian wisdom literature also turned up in the body of Hebrew wisdom literature, he was almost ashamed of his discovery and never followed it up.

Secular scholars, on the other hand, have been quick to take any resemblance between heathen traditions and the Bible as absolute proof that the scriptures are simply ordinary stuff. The classic example of this was the Babylonian flood story, discovered by Layard in the mid-nineteenth century. It resembled the biblical account closely enough to show without doubt that they were connected, but before any search for the source of either version was undertaken, it was joyfully announced that the biblical account was derived from the Babylonian and was, therefore, a fraud. The experts were wrong on both points—the Assurbanipal version is really a late redaction, and the duplication of the flood story, instead of weakening it, actually confirms it. Indeed, if there really were a universal flood, it would be very strange if memories of it did not turn up in many places, as in fact they do.

3. Most students learn about ancient myths from teachers and textbooks of literature by way of the late classic poets to whom the myths were little more than literary playthings. A student cannot understand “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” without knowing something about the many myths that cluster about the figure of Theseus, but the teacher’s only concern is to put the student in the literary picture, and for that a trip to the handbook suffices.

For the student of literature, the myths are but handy aids to the writer, useful devices for achieving decorative or erudite effects, as they were once the paint and gilt of decadent poetry. Since the day of Augustus, the literati have had neither the desire nor the equipment to look beneath the surface.

Hardly worth mentioning at this date is the nineteenth century Wissenschaft, which inevitably explained everything as “nature myth”—primitive man’s reaction to his natural environment. The ancient Sophists played around with that idea, naively assuming, as did the scholars and scientists of a hundred years ago, that any reasonable explanation for a phenomenon that they could come up with would necessarily be the true and correct answer—how could it be otherwise if it was a strictly rational conclusion free of all superstition and religion? It was an impressive exhibition of scientific gullibility, but it is not taken seriously today, now that we know a lot more about ancient myths than we did.

In recent years the early myths have acquired a new status and dignity. A steady accumulation of comparative studies tying this to that and these to those now crams the stacks of our libraries. Spread out before the mind’s eye, their myriad pages interweave into a grandiose texture, a vast shadowy tapestry in which we begin to discern the common backdrop of all history and religion.

But the books are still sedulously segregated and widely distributed among the floors and alcoves of the library, and to bring them all together into the one organic whole from which they were taken is a task that will yet tax the capacity of the computer. Meanwhile, we must imagine the pieces of this huge jigsaw puzzle as heaped in separate piles, each representing a special field of study or cultural area, from Iceland to Polynesia. To date no one has taken the trouble to integrate the materials in even one of these hundred-odd piles; and as to taking up the whole lot and relating every pile to every other, so far only a few bold suggestions have come from men of genius like G. Santillana, Cyrus Gordon, or Robert Graves, whose proposals get chilly reception from specialized scholars who can only be alarmed by such boldness and appalled by the work entailed in painting the whole picture.

But such study as has been done shows us that the old myths are by no means pure fiction, any more than they are all history. As the Muses told Hesiod, “We know both how to fib and how to tell the truth”; and, as Joseph Smith learned of the Apocrypha, “there are many things contained therein that are true, and there are many things contained therein that are not true” (see D&C 91)—all of which means that we must be very careful in accepting and condemning.

Today, formidable task forces of first-rate scholars and scientists are working on the Atlantis problem, whereas a very few years ago anyone careless enough to express interest in that question was announcing his candidacy for the asylum. The world that “deepbrowed Homer” was supposed to have conjured up out of his own head has in our own day taken on flesh and blood, and today we read the novels of Marie Renault or Robert Graves with a feeling that Theseus or Heracles were probably real persons who did at least something like the deeds attributed to them.

If we attempt to untangle the probably historical from the fanciful, we soon discover the common ground on which they meet and fuse: it is ritual. Myths arise at attempts to explain ritual doings, whose meaning has been forgotten—”What mean these stones?” After much discussion back and forth, the consensus now emerges that it is the rites and ordinances that come first. This should have been clear from the outset, since myths and legends are innumerable while the rites and ordinances found throughout the world are surprisingly few and uniform, making it quite apparent that it is the stories that are invented—the rites are always there.

Such indeed has always been the Latter-day Saint position. Adam first performed an ordinance and when asked to give an explanation of it replied that he knew of none “save the Lord commanded me.” (Moses 5:6.) Then it was that the true explanation came forth from the mouth of a heavenly instructor.

But if in later times members of some distant tribe, having inherited the rites, were asked to explain them, they would have to come up with some invented stories of their own—and that would be myth. It is in their contact with ritual that history and fantasy share a common ground and mingle with each other.

Take the model heroes Theseus and Heracles, for example. We know that they are ritual figures because they repeatedly get themselves involved in well-known ritual situations. Thus each in his wanderings is not once but often the guest of a king who tries to put him to death, forcing the hero to turn the tables and slay the host or his officiating high priest in the manner intended for himself. The nature of this business is now well understood, thanks to hundreds of similar examples collected from all over the world and from every century, making it clear that we have to do with an established routine practice of inviting a noble, visiting stranger to be the substitute for the king—on the throne, in the favor of the queen, and finally and all too quickly on the sacrificial altar—thus sparing the king himself the discomfort and inconvenience of being ritually put to death at the end of a sacred cycle of years. This exotic little drama was more than a fiction; it was an actual practice, surviving in some parts of the world down to modern times, but flourishing with particular vigor in the Near East around 1400 B.C., the period to which most of the Greek myths belong.

Since, as we have said, myths are invented or adjusted to explain ritual, the two are naturally identified, and hence any event reported in a myth is customarily dismissed as purely mythical. But that won’t do any more, because such strange ceremonial events actually did take place, regularly and repeatedly.

Ancient civilization was hierocentric—centered around the temple. The everyday activities of farming, trade, and war were all ritually bound to the cycle of the year and the cosmos. The great periodic rites were of a dramatic nature, but they were none the less real: a coronation is the purest ceremony, yet for all that it is still real recorded history; a war or migration, though only too real to its victims, would be carried out with strict ritual propriety, according to the religious rules of the game. It is hard for us to understand this ritualizing of history, but once it was a very real thing, and one can still find it miraculously surviving among the Hopi.

So when the ancient myths from all over the world show us the same situations and the same adventures and monsters recurring again and again, we may look upon this endless repetition not as discrediting the historicity of those events and situations but as confirming it. These myths tell about such things happening because that was the type of thing that did happen, and the ritual nature of the event guaranteed that it should happen not once but over and over again.

Nothing illustrates this principle better than the long-despised (by scholars and clergy) and neglected book of Abraham. Since we have chosen Theseus and Heracles as our archetypes, we may well consider the most spectacular and celebrated stories of how each escaped from his inhospitable host. The last and worst actor that Theseus had to deal with was Procrustes, whose notorious murder bed has become proverbial. Was there such a bed? A century ago the Egyptologist Lefebure noted that there are quite a number of old traditions around the eastern Mediterranean about kings who built cruelly ingenious altars, sometimes mechanically operated, usually of metal, and shaped like beds, on which they would put to death their noble guests.

In 1859, B. Beer pointed out for the first time that Abraham belongs in the old Procrustes tradition, noting that the wicked Cities of the Plain where Abraham was given a bad time all had in their central marketplaces ritual beds on which they would sacrifice strangers by stretching them out if they were too short and whacking them off if they were too tall to match the exact length of the bed. This, of course, is the celebrated Procrustes technique, and Beer duly notes that Procrustes’ other name, Damastes, has exactly the same meaning as Sodom—the “Forcer” or “Violator.” Furthermore, Beer reports early traditions telling how Eleazer, when he went to represent Abraham in those cities, appeared there in the exact form and stature of Abraham and narrowly escaped being put to death on such a bed. So we have Abraham on the altar as another Theseus or Heracles, surprisingly sharing the fate of the great patriarch of the Athenians!

But Lefebure also notices that Theseus and the bed of Procrustes have a close counterpart in the story of Heracles’ most famous and sensational escape. This took place not in Greece nor in Asia, but in Egypt, at the court of Pharaoh. The Greeks regarded this as the first and oldest example of the oft-repeated royal sacrifice of an honored visitor, the archetype of them all, and they always located it in Busiris, which actually was from prehistoric times on down, the most celebrated and venerated center of human sacrifice in Egypt.

Egyptologists do not doubt the reality of a periodic sacrifice of the king of Egypt in early times, or the practice of drafting a substitute (preferably a noble, redheaded stranger) to take his place, first on the throne to establish his identity with the king, and then on the altar. So we have a three-way tie-up, and a very firm one, in which Theseus is related to Heracles as an intended victim on the famous “cruel altar” of a desperate and designing king. The same Theseus is also related to Abraham in a like situation by the peculiar name and nature of his evil host Procrustes. And Abraham in turn is tied to Heracles as the intended but miraculously delivered victim on the altar of a pharaoh of Egypt.

What are we to make of these three heroes? Do their stereotyped adventures cancel each other out? On the contrary, they confirm each other as long as we recognize that the reality that lies behind them is a ritual reality. The book of Abraham is particularly strong on this point, making much of the awesome ceremonial nature of the doings in which the patriarch as a young man got himself dangerously involved. We are dealing with well-established routines of which nothing was known a few years ago.

Recently someone has noted that mention of the attempted sacrifice of Abraham is to be found in the once widely read Bayle’s “Dictionary” as early as 1732 and suggested that that is where Joseph Smith got the story. But all Bayle says on the subject is that there is a rabbinical tradition “that he was cast by the Chaldeans into a fire, from which he emerged unscathed,” with the usual stereotyped observation that the story arose from a misreading of his escape from “Ur,” Ur meaning both “Ur” (the city) and “fire.”

And that is the whole story—no mention of any altar, let alone a description of deliverance by the angel accompanied by the disastrous earthquake and other details that any reader of the book of Abraham knows about. Bayle mentions the rabbis but gives us no references whatever. All this is preserved in early Jewish tradition but was not published to the world before 1859, and the really significant documents did not first see the light until within the past twenty years or so. Actually, Joseph Smith’s account of Abraham is a highly unoriginal story, one that can be documented from a hundred parallel sources. But nobody in Joseph Smith’s day knew anything at all about that story or dreamed of putting Abraham in the mythical picture where he fits so nicely. The story is in every detail an authentic myth, describing an authentic ritual, and as such is to be considered seriously as authentic history.

Another example. To the Babylonian flood story and the Greek myth of Deucalion (the Greeks made much of their forefather Japetus—Japheth), Joseph Smith added yet another tale of the deluge, which he boldly attributed to the Egyptians. It was the story of a great lady who came to Egypt just after the flood, found the land still under water, and “settled her sons in it,” establishing the monarch by matriarchal right. (Abraham 1:24.)

It was not until the second decade of the present century that H. Junker gathered together the widely scattered Egyptian documents that told the same story preserved by the Egyptians since the beginning of their history by being ritually dramatized every year in a great national water festival. This episode from the book of Abraham is, like the story of Abraham on the altar, a perfect little vignette, placed with unerring accuracy in its proper ancient setting.

In conclusion, like those rare elements in deserted mines and dumps that miners and prospectors have hitherto ignored but that now promise great riches, the riches of mythology, so poorly worked in the past, still await the serious exploitation made possible by new skills and techniques.

There is no telling what wonders may be brought to light simply by bringing together new combinations and associations of documents already in our possession. But from the few hesitating steps that have been made so far, it already appears that the ancient myths, wherever they turn up, have a tendency to fit together into the same picture, supporting and confirming each other due to the solid ground on which they stand—the reality of ritual, by which history becomes a religious phenomenon—as is markedly the case in the annals of the Pharaohs. This leads us to conclude that there is a serious historical reality behind the myths as a whole, in spite of the adjusting and romancing that sometimes effaces them almost beyond recognition.

The myths thus provide us with a new and powerful tool for searching into hitherto inaccessible recesses of the past. Though the use of this tool has barely begun, it has already given us a useful means of checking up on the revelations of Joseph Smith, showing us that what were thought by some of his critics to be his wildest stories, the purest figments of his imagination, turn out to be mythological commonplaces, overlooked by generations of scholars and clergymen.

NOTES

* “Myths and the Scriptures” was published in the October 1971 New Era, pp. 34—38.

0 notes

nerdygaymormon · 4 years ago

Note

Do you have a link to your thoughts on the CES letter? Because I'm sure plenty of folk have asked you about it. I'm, struggling.

The CES letter has been mentioned to me a few times in asks, but I don’t recall being asked to respond directly to it.

Before getting into it, I want to make you aware of this post about Faith Transitions, I think it may be useful to you.

I read the CES letter many years ago, probably the original version, it’s changed a lot since then. I think the CES letter is sloppy, and twists quotes, uses some questionable sources, and frames things in the worst possible way. It’s basically an amalgamation of all the anti-Mormon literature. But many of the main points of the CES letter are important and correct, even if the supporting details aren’t.

In a way, the CES letter has done the Church a favor. For a long time, Elder Packer insisted that anything which isn’t faith-promoting shouldn’t be taught. As a result, most members of the Church were taught a simplified version of Church history, leaving out anything that is messy or difficult. Although those things could be found if someone was looking for them, I found many of them simply by reading Brigham Young Discourses or other works of the early church.

With the internet, Elder Packer’s approach to history turns out to be a bad one. This information is out there and now most members learn about it from sources seeking to destroy their faith. One response to this has been a series of essays where the Church talks about some difficult subjects.

————————————————————

I’m not going to go through all the claims & challenges of the CES letter, but let me address some of the main ones.

1) There are errors in the Book of Mormon that are also contained in the 1769 edition of the Bible.

From the more faithful point-of-view, Joseph recognizes these passages, such as those from Isaiah, and knows they've already been translated into English and copies them from his family’s Bible. The non-faithful point-of-view is that Joseph copied these verses from his family Bible and tried to pass it off as his own translation.

2) DNA analysis has concluded that Native American Indians do not originate from the Middle East or from Israelites but from Asia.

This is correct. The Church has an essay which admits this and then spends a lot of time explaining how genetics works and one day we might find some Middle East connection. I find the Church essay convoluted as it goes through many possible (and unlikely) reasons for why no DNA of the Jaredites, Nephites or Lamanites has yet been found in the Americas.

3) There are things in the Book of Mormon that didn’t exist during Book of Mormon times, or in Central America (assuming this is where the Book of Mormon takes place), such as horses, chariots, goats, elephants, wheat, and steel.

This is also correct. Maybe the translation process was using a common word in English for a common item in the Book of Mormon. Maybe these are errors. Maybe it’s made up.

4) No archeological evidence has been found for the Nephite/Lamanite civilizations.

Correct. When it comes to archeological evidence, it's true that we haven't found any. For one thing, we don't know where the Nephite & Lamanite civilizations are supposed to have taken place. If you don't know where to look, it's easy to have no evidence. Perhaps Nephites & Lamanites didn’t actually exist and that’s why there’s no archeological evidence. The Book of Mormon does seem to do a decent job of describing geography of the Middle East before Lehi & his family boarded the boat for the Promised Land.

5) Book of Mormon names and places are strikingly similar (or identical) to many local names and places of the region Joseph Smith lived in.

This seems like a funny thing to get hung up on. First of all, it’s not very many names that are similar. Secondly, many places in the US are named for Biblical places & people. If the Book of Mormon people came from Israel, it makes sense they did something similar. For example, the word Jordan is in the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and in many places in America.

6) He points to obscure books or dime-novels that Joseph Smith might have read and the similarities between them and the Book of Mormon.

Those similarities are mostly at the surface level. To me it doesn't seem like Joseph plagiarized any particular book, and these specific books seem to not been very popular so difficult to say Joseph, who lived on the frontier, actually read them. Funny how no one from that time period thought the Book of Mormon resembled those books, probably because they hadn’t heard of them. But Joseph did hear and read a number of stories and some of that phrasing or whatever of the time influenced him. Think of songwriters, they create a new song then get accused of plagiarizing because it's similar to another popular song. Even without intending to, they were influenced by things they heard.

7) The Book of Mormon has had 100,000 changes.

Most of the "100,000" changes to the Book of Mormon were to break it into chapters & verses, to add chapter headings, or to add grammar such as commas and whatnot. There are some changes to fix errors that got printed but differed from the original manuscript. And there's been some clarifications made, but these are few in number. By claiming "100,000" he's trying to make it seem like there's a scam being done. It's easy to get a replication of the first Book of Mormon from the Community of Christ and read it side-by-side with today's version. I’ve done that and occasionally there’s a word or two here or there which differ, but overall it's mostly the same.

8) There were over 4 different First Vision accounts

True. Over the years, the way Joseph described the First Vision changed. I think different versions emphasize different aspects of the experience. I don’t find them to be contradictory. Oh, and the Church has an essay about this.

9) The papyri that Joseph translated into the Book of Abraham has been found and translated and it’s nothing like the Book of Abraham.

This is true. The Church has an essay about it. The Church now says that the papyri inspired Joseph to get the Book of Abraham via revelation, much like his translations of the Bible weren’t from studying the ancient Greek & Hebrew. It is a big change from what the Church used to teach, that this was a translation of the papyrus. The papyri has nothing to do with the Book of Abraham, and the explanations of the facsimiles in the Pearl of Great Price don’t match what the scholars say those pictures are about.

10) Joseph married 34+ women, many without Emma’s consent, some who had husbands, and even a teenager.

This all appears to be true. Emma knew about some of them, but not all. As for the married women, they were still married to their husbands but sealed to Joseph (I know this is strange to us, but this sort of thing was common until Wilford Woodruff standardized how sealings are done).

Polygamy was illegal in the United States. Most people who participated were told to keep it secret. So of course there’s carefully-worded statements by Joseph and others denying they participate in polygamy.

The salacious question everyone wants to know is if Joseph slept with all these women. We don’t know, but a DNA search for descendants of Joseph has taken place among the descendants of the women he was ‘married’ to and none have been found. But still, if he wasn’t doing anything wrong, why is he hiding this from Emma?

11) The Church used to teach that polygamy was required for exaltation, even though the Book of Mormon condemns polygamy.

This is accurate. The Church says polygamy was part of ancient Israel and so as part of the restoration of all things, polygamy had to be restored, see D&C 132:34. Now we no longer say polygamy is required to get to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.

12) Brigham Young taught Adam-God theory, which is now disavowed by the Church.

True. Joseph Smith didn’t teach this and John Taylor & Wilford Woodruff don’t seem to have any time for this teaching. It’s a thing Brigham Young was hot about and taught, but seems a lot of the church didn’t buy it as it was discarded after his death.

13) Black people weren’t allowed to hold the priesthood until 1978, despite Joseph having conferred it to a few Black people during his life.

Very true and very sad. This and the Mountain Meadows Massacre are the two biggest stains on the Church’s past. There is a Church essay on Race & the Priesthood. The ban appears to have begun with Brigham Young and he developed several theories to justify it, and these explanations expanded over the decades and bigotry was taught as doctrine. The Church now disavows all explanations that were taught in the past.

No reason for the priesthood ban is put forward in the Church essay other than racism. The past leaders were racists and that blinded them to what God wanted for Black people. There’s a big lesson in that for LGBTQ teachings of the Church.

14) The Church misrepresents how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.

The accounts of Joseph Smith putting a seer stone in a hat and reading words from it, that's part of the historic record. Quotes about it don’t make it to our Sunday School lessons, but if you go back to the Joseph Smith papers and other accounts, it’s there to read. Joseph also used the Urim & Thummim, and wrote out characters and studied them, but he seems to have most favored the stone-in-hat method. I think the main problem here is the Church in its artwork and movies does not depict this, and therefore most members are unaware until they see anti-Mormon literature. Why does the Church not show Joseph looking into a hat? Because it seems magical and weird to modern people. But how much weirder is it than he put on the Urim & Thummim like glasses and could translate that way, or he wrote out these characters from some extinct language and was able to figure out what they mean?

————————————————————

A number of the main points in the CES letter are true (even if explanations/supporting details in the CES are problematic). Some of the main points have simple explanations and don’t seem like a big deal. Others challenge what the Church has taught. To its credit, the Church put out essays by historians & scholars, with sources listed in the footnotes, addressing several of these controversial topics.

————————————————————

Religion is meant to help humans make sense of their world and our place in it. Most religious stories are metaphorical but end up getting taught as literal history and, in my opinion, the same is true of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And that’s why the CES letter has power, it points out things aren’t literally true but were taught by the Church as factual, and the CES letter shows us part of our messy history that the Church tried to hide.

————————————————————

The story of Adam and Eve can’t literally be true. It doesn’t fit our evolutionary past, but it’s meant to make our lives important, God created us and we have to account to Him for our choices, and it’s important to find someone to go through life with. We can say the same of Job and the Book of Ruth, fiction with a purpose.

While there are some real events included in the Bible, much of what’s written is there to teach lessons, culture, and give meaning to life. Jesus taught in parables so at least he was upfront that they were stories that contained morals.

Can I believe the same about the Book of Mormon, that it’s inspired fiction with meaning I can apply to my life, or must it be literally history to have value?

————————————————————

I went through a massive faith crisis while attending BYU. I had access to materials that told a different story of this religion than I’d been taught (the sorts of things in the CES Letter) and it threw me for a loop.

It felt like the floor of faith I had stood on shattered and I fell with no way to stop myself. After I had a chance to process through the things I was feeling, I looked at my shattered faith and picked up the parts that were meaningful to me.

I had lined up my faith similar to a line of dominoes. If the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph was a prophet. If Joseph was a prophet, then this is the true church. If this is the true church, then...

This works until it doesn’t. Once a domino topples over, it starts a chain event.

Now I look at principles and concepts and decide if they’re meaningful to me.

I love the idea that we can spend eternity with the people we love most.

I believe we should be charitable and loving to others.

People on the margins need to be looked after and helped and lifted.

Poor people deserve dignity and the rich to be challenged.

We have a commitment to our community and we all serve to make it better.

All are alike to God, we’re all loved and God has a grand plan for us.

Those who passed away can still be saved through the atonement of Christ.

Those are all principles I find in the Bible and Book of Mormon or at church and I find Love flows through all of those.

This new approach works for me. I don’t have to believe or hold onto problematic teachings. I can drop them and still hold the parts that I find valuable. I can reject the teachings and statements which are bigoted, homophobic, transphobic, racist, ableist, misogynistic. Prophets can make mistakes and still have taught some useful things.

That little voice of the spirit and what it teaches and guides me to do, I trust it over what Church leaders say. Overarching principles are more important to me than specific details for how this gets applied in the 1800′s or 1950′s or Biblical times.

————————————————————

I truly hope some of what I’ve written is helpful.

There’s no use pretending that the CES letter doesn’t get some things correct. It’s also helpful to understand it’s not just trying to share truth, but has an agenda to make the Church look as bad as possible.

What about the things the CES letter is correct about?

Has this church helped you learn to connect with the Divine?

The Church has some very big flaws, but also has some big things in its favor. Some of its unique teachings are very appealing and feel hopeful and right.

Can you leave the Church and be a good person and have a relationship with God? Absolutely.

I also know this church is a community and it’s hard to walk away cold-turkey with nothing to replace it, without another network to belong to. It’s as much a religion as it is a lifestyle and circle of friends.

Are there parts you can hold onto? Parts you can let go of?

You have a lot to think about and work through.

#long post #ces letter #this is a much longer answer than I thought I would write

46 notes · View notes