#LDS ancient scripture analysis

[mindfulldsliving]

Creation and Controversy: Responding to Paul Gee on Genesis 1:1-5 and Abraham 4:1-5

Paul Gee’s critique of Genesis 1:1-5 compared to Abraham 4:1-5 has sparked strong reactions, especially regarding the concept of “God” versus “the Gods.” Mormons who believe the Book of Abraham are denying what is written in Genesis. They are accepting a belief in a plurality of Gods instead of a one true God which the Bible teaches. As for Joseph Smith, who wrote this false Book of Abraham,…

[examiningmormonism]

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.

[jeremyevelandus]

Old Testament Lesson 23 - Gospel Doctrine #GospelDoctrineHelps In this episode we look at 1 Samuel 18. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX I want to give special thanks to The Interpreter Foundation for releasing Interpreter Scripture Roundtable 73: Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Lesson 23. Here are some of my other favorite youtubers and their videos! Interpreter Scripture Roundtable 71: Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Lesson 21, God Will Honor... ShekinahTV Live Muhammad ﷺ In the Various World Religious Scriptures + Q & A - Part 2 - Dr Zakir Naik Don't Waste Your Suffering (1 Samuel 24:1-22) Interpreter Scripture Roundtable 72: Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Lesson 22, "The Lord Looketh... 1 Samuel 24:8-22 Mark Levin interviews Thomas Sowell Milton Friedman - Money and Inflation (Q&A) Interpreter Scripture Roundtable 74: Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Lesson 24, "Create in Me... Interpreter Scripture Roundtable 27: D&C Gospel Doctrine Lesson 23, "Seek Learning, Even by Study... “By the Blood Ye Are Sanctified” - Jeffrey M. Bradshaw & Matthew L. Bowen Celebrating the new edition of Royal Skousen's Analysis of Textual Variants Robert Joseph: Māori Responses to the Mormon Church - A Commentary Abraham's Hebron Then and Now, Part 5: Mamre What Did Hugh Nibley Have to Say About the LDS Enoch and the Aramaic Book of the Giants? The English Rose Interpreter Scripture Roundtable 195: D&C and Church History Lesson 6, "I Will Tell... Abraham's Hebron Then and Now, Part 4: Ancient Hebron Interpreter Scripture Roundtable 196: D&C and Church History Lesson 7, "The First Principles... Abraham's Hebron Then and Now, Part 2: The Tomb of the Patriarchs The Interpreter Foundation Tele Shekinah Digital Mimbar dpark76 The Interpreter Foundation JD Farag Brian Empric BasicEconomics The Interpreter Foundation The Interpreter Foundation The Interpreter Foundation The Interpreter Foundation The Interpreter Foundation The Interpreter Foundation The Interpreter Foundation Charlotte Rose The Interpreter Foundation The Interpreter Foundation The Interpreter Foundation The Interpreter Foundation Take a look at The Interpreter Foundation stats and you'll understand why I am a fan. Video Url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbmPzy9-vuM Video Title: Interpreter Scripture Roundtable 73: Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Lesson 23 Username: The Interpreter Foundation Subscribers: 2.2K Views: 572 views ------------------------- More at https://youtu.be/sd7CraHuI54 from https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3fvc-Ak3I0DDFudELbkO1g

[williammchaleca]

Old Testament Lesson 21 - Gospel Doctrine #GospelDoctrineHelps...

Old Testament Lesson 21 - Gospel Doctrine #GospelDoctrineHelps In this lesson we go over selected verses in 1 Samuel 1-8. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX I want to give special thanks to The Interpreter Foundation for releasing Interpreter Scripture Roundtable 71: Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Lesson 21, God Will Honor…. Here are some of my other favorite youtubers and their videos! 855 Is Old Testament God Satan Part 1 Is the God of the Old Testament the same as the God of the New Testament “The God of the Old Testament Kills Children!!!” Can We All Understand the Bible Alike? What Made It Okay for God to Kill Women and Children In the Old Testament? Beekeeping - Queen Rearing Part 1 109. How Can a Loving God Kill People in the Old Testament? The Tree of Knowledge as the Veil of the Sanctuary - Jeffrey M. Bradshaw What Did Hugh Nibley Have to Say About the LDS Enoch and the Aramaic Book of the Giants? Is the God of the Old Testament the God of the New Testament? Robert Joseph: Māori Responses to the Mormon Church - A Commentary Abraham’s Hebron Then and Now, Part 4: Ancient Hebron How can we reconcile the Old Testament God and the New Testament God? Abraham’s Hebron Then and Now, Part 5: Mamre “By the Blood Ye Are Sanctified” - Jeffrey M. Bradshaw & Matthew L. Bowen Enos — Wrestling a Man and Seeing God’s Face by Matthew L. Bowen What is the role of revelation in patriarchal blessings? Celebrating the new edition of Royal Skousen’s Analysis of Textual Variants Abraham’s Hebron Then and Now, Part 3: Jacob’s Well and the Tombs of Joseph and Rachel What is the significance of lineage in patriarchal blessings? Bill Donahue GivingAnAnswer Living Waters CBCintl Desiring God David Burns oneminuteapologist The Interpreter Foundation The Interpreter Foundation drcraigvideos The Interpreter Foundation The Interpreter Foundation ehrmanproject The Interpreter Foundation The Interpreter Foundation The Interpreter Foundation The Interpreter Foundation The Interpreter Foundation The Interpreter Foundation The Interpreter Foundation Take a look at The Interpreter Foundation stats and you’ll understand why I am a fan. Video Url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8N5w_kls4M Video Title: Interpreter Scripture Roundtable 71: Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Lesson 21, God Will Honor… Username: The Interpreter Foundation Subscribers: 2.1K Views: 751 views ————————-

More at https://youtu.be/BcsNSzeoFhA from https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3fvc-Ak3I0DDFudELbkO1g

from https://jeremyevelandus.tumblr.com/post/174050942374

[mdonline]

Trump’s Dismemberment of Bears Ears National Monument

The Revelator

President Trump’s visit to Salt Lake City Monday to sign two orders slashing the sizeof Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments also included a meeting with Mormon religious leaders who shared “Church doctrine” with the president before he signed the controversial proclamations.

Trump’s unprecedented, two-million-acre cut in public land protection was spurred by Mormon political leaders, including Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, and supported by the entire Utah congressional delegation, Utah governor and Utah legislature.

It remains unknown what was discussed when Trump met with the top leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints during the closed meeting.

But if Trump had also chosen to sit down with experts such as Thomas Murphy and Angelo Baca, two scholars of American Indian descent who were raised Mormon, he surely would have heard a different perspective on Mormon doctrine from the one offered by church leaders.

Trump would have heard how latent racism, a history of grave robbery beginning with LDS founder Joseph Smith, disrespect of tribal sovereignty and a belief in divine right to the land are at the heart Utah’s relentless drive to seize control of federal public lands, particularly Bears Ears.

Murphy and Baca co-authored a 2016 academic paper, “Rejecting Racism in Any Form: Latter-day Saint Rhetoric, Religion and Repatriation,” on the history of Mormon theology and its impact on indigenous people.

The paper provides an indigenous interpretation of Mormon history and details how religious scripture has been used to marginalize American Indians, justify the looting of artifacts, and reject tribal sovereignty and rights to petition the federal government to create national monuments such as Bears Ears.

The paper acknowledges that the LDS Church has issued statements condemning all forms of racism. But the scholars argue that until the church takes tangible steps to compensate for the racist tenets it held to in the past — steps like returning indigenous artifacts and body parts taken from grave sites — its rejection of racism will continue to ring hollow.

“A fundamental problem for the Latter-day Saint aspiration to move beyond all forms of racism is that the foundation events of this new world faith began with looting indigenous artifacts and graves made possible through the theft of indigenous lands,” they wrote in the paper.

“Racism, as experienced by indigenous peoples under colonialism, has often included differential standards in the treatment of the dead and the artifacts they left behind as well as religious justifications for the usurpation of lands,” the paper continues. “Mormon scriptures produced in part through the desecration of graves continue to denigrate American Indians and Africans cursed by God with dark skin, while paradoxically claiming that God is ‘no respecter of persons.’

“For nearly two centuries these sacred texts have been central to the acquisition of wealth and power in the LDS Church, much of it gained at the expense of indigenous peoples. If racism is truly to be rejected in all of its forms then the LDS Church needs to consider repatriation of indigenous body parts, burial goods, sacred artifacts and stolen lands as an active way to change the current structures of domination and realize its egalitarian aspirations.”

The paper chronicles the early history of Mormon founder Joseph Smith in the “money-digging business” in and near Palmyra, N.Y., in the early 19th century. The business included looking for artifacts in indigenous burials. In 1823 an angel purportedly guided Smith to gold plates, which have never been presented, buried in a hillside near Palmyra.

The gold plates, according to Mormon doctrine, were inscribed with the history of the former inhabitants of North America written in an unknown language described as “reformed Egyptian.” The purported translation, said by Smith to have been conducted with a “seer stone” — rocks considered sacred gifts from God — placed in the bottom of a hat, became the Book of Mormon.

Smith would later similarly translate Egyptian papyri that LDS members in Kirkland, Ohio, purchased in 1835 from a businessman who was touring the country displaying mummies and other artifacts. The translation, completed in 1842, became the canonical Mormon text, the Book of Abraham, according to the LDS church.

“The Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham both owe their origins to the practice of grave-robbery, an offense not just today but also at the time of their production,” stated Murphy’s and Baca’s paper.

Murphy is chairman of the anthropology department at Edmonds (Wash.) Community College and gained national prominence in 2002 when he published a research paper on DNA analysis that debunked a fundamental Mormon belief that American Indians descended from Israelites. The church ordered him to renounce his paper or face excommunication. He refused, and the church backed down and suspended its excommunication proceedings.

Baca is a filmmaker and doctoral student at New York University who produced a documentary on Bears Ears.

Murphy is of Mohawk descent and Baca is Navajo and Hopi.

“The presumption of the right of the settler colonists (to the land) is not unique to Mormons,” Murphy tells The Revelator. But, he says, what’s unique to Mormon settler colonists is that they use scripture to justify their actions.

“When you add a divine sanction to it you get an element of righteous zeal that I think is playing out” in the intense opposition to Bears Ears National Monument from Utah’s elected leaders, nearly all of whom are Mormons, he says. “There’s not just a righteous zeal, but there’s a righteous fury.”

The anger is rooted in the fact that the tribes bypassed state and local government and requested President Obama make Bears Ears a national monument. This action came only after years of being closed out on discussions in Utah Rep. Rob Bishop’s Public Land Initiative that failed to get out of the House Natural Resources Committee in 2016.

“When the tribes tried to protect these cultural and natural resources by bypassing the local governments and going to the federal government, the Mormons were able to see this as federal overreach instead of seeing it as a tribal sovereignty issue,” Murphy says.

Trump and his Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke seized on the Utah political leaders’ rhetoric of the monument designations as a “federal land grab” meant to “lock up” economic resources. Both monuments include lands that were already controlled by U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, undercutting the federal overreach claim.

When viewed from the American Indian perspective, Trump’s decision to gut Bears Ears is another ugly chapter beginning with the white settler colonists who stole their land and killed and displaced millions of their people. The indigenous people that were left after the genocide were confined to reservations where their languages were banned, children sent away to boarding schools, and their indigenous societies were isolated and cut off from commerce and communication with other tribes.

And now, after five tribes (Navajo, Hopi, Zuni, Ute Mountain Ute and Unitah Ouray Ute) with a history of conflict came together to successfully petition the federal government to create Bears Ears to protect significant cultural resources, Trump has reneged on a previous president’s pledge to preserve the land.

“I’m approving the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase recommendation for you, Orrin,” Trump told Hatch in an October phone call, according to CNN. According to Hatch the majority of Utah residents, including American Indians, supported reducing the size of Bears Ears.

Murphy said Hatch is “lying” about tribal support, which is supported by the fact that at least five tribes are preparing to file a joint lawsuit seeking to block Trump’s downsizing of Bears Ears.

“(Hatch) seems to be taking on sort of Trumpesque political move of claiming native support for his actions” while ignoring opposition from non-Mormon Indian leaders, Murphy says. “They are being entirely dismissed in favor of one or two Navajo that happened to be Mormon that are supporting this.”

Murphy is referring to San Juan County, Utah Commissioner Rebecca Benally who is also a Navajo and is a vehement opponent of Bears Ears. Six of the seven Utah Navajo chapter houses support Bears Ears, as does the Navajo Utah Commission and the Navajo Nation.

Murphy says some Mormons tend to dismiss the legitimacy of non-Mormon American Indians positions because they are often associated as descendants of the Lamanites, who were “cursed” by God with dark skin because they had become wicked, according to LDS teachings. The Lamanites, according to LDS teachings, are the Israelites who are said to have colonized North America around 600 B.C.

“The book of Mormon story gives Mormons license to dismiss native voices and their legitimacy because they see that indigenous people of once having a right to the land, they lost through their own wickedness,” Murphy says. Not only were the Lamanites considered wicked, they also annihilated a subset of the original Israelite colonists called Nephites, who were white. LDS teachings assert that “there was an ancient white civilization that was destroyed by the ancestors of the American Indians.”

Murphy says Mormon founder Joseph Smith attributed the great cultural artifacts found in North America, including the earthen mounds built by the Mound Builders, to the white Nephites rather than to the ancestors of American Indians. Combine this with Smith’s history of grave robbing and Murphy says it’s not surprising that some Mormons don’t see anything wrong with collecting ancient artifacts off public land, even if it violates federal law.

“They don’t see themselves as stealing from Native Americans because they see Native Americans as usurpers of what once belonged to white people,” Murphy says. “And that’s the story that comes out of the Book of Mormon.”

Bears Ears is estimated to have more than 100,000 significant cultural sites. Many sites have already been looted as part of a lucrative trafficking business that has proliferated in southern Utah for more than a century. Some of the most notable artifacts are on display at the Edge of Cedars State Park and Museum in Blanding, Utah.

In a written statement to The Revelator, Baca said: “American Indians are not cursed with a dark skin. We are not morally and ethically cursed by God because we are brown and indigenous.” He called on Mormons to “educate themselves on American Indian history, culture and language.”

Baca asked Mormons to truly move past the “racism and discrimination coded as law and order in a deeply unjust-settler-historical system.”

He sharply criticized Mormon leaders for hosting Trump. “I believe they have sacrificed their own Mormon values and beliefs in supporting a morally and ethically questionable man.”

John Dougherty

is the investigative journalist for The Revelator. An award-winning reporter with more than 35 years’ experience covering environmental, political and economic news, he has worked for weekly and daily newspapers including the Dayton Daily News, The Phoenix Gazette and Phoenix New Times. His freelance work has appeared in The New York Times, High Country News and The Washington Post. John has produced two documentary films, “Cyanide Beach” and “Flin Flon Flim Flam,” about the efforts of two Canadian companies to build the proposed Rosemont Copper Mine in southern Arizona. John loves the water and spends free time kayaking, swimming and traveling the backroads of the American West and Baja.

[examiningmormonism]

The Book of Mormon and the Gospel of the Holy Twelve

I'd love to see a comparative study done on the "Gospel of the Holy Twelve" and the Book of Mormon. While the latter is better known, the former was also produced in the 19th century. Both texts purport to be ancient scriptural texts. Both came forth in the same general period of time. Both of them were alleged to have been translated from an original text which is no longer available. And both of them are generally regarded as having a modern production context, except for some strange vegetarian groups for the former (the "Gospel of the Holy Twelve" has as a major theme ethical treatment of animals and vegetarianism) and Latter-day Saints for the latter. One of the earmarks of the Gospel's modern production context, it is said, is its verbatim quotations from the English text of the KJV Bible, the same is said of the Book of Mormon.

What I'm particularly interested in seeing is how similar potential arguments for authenticity could be. There are a number of good, well-trained ancient scholars who believe in and argue for the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. It is my view that the common flaw running through their arguments is in a lack of appreciation for the fact that what one must do is a comparative analysis of two potential production contexts. An ancient parallel, no matter how striking or foreign it is to our own ears, must be compared to Joseph Smiths local environment in 1827-1830 Palmyra- not what academics thought in Joseph's day, not what average folks think in our day. It's a very specific setting which must be analyzed, and most scholars of the ancient world making arguments for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, in my experience, simply don't know enough about that world to sufficiently defend the uniqueness of the parallels from antiquity.

In the case of the Gospel of the Holy Twelve, an argument one could make is the title "Father-Mother" that Jesus uses of God, while the canonical gospels, of course, use the title "Father." If I were to argue for its authenticity, I would point towards the fact that the Gospel of the Hebrews refers to the Holy Spirit as Jesus' divine mother and even seems to suggest that the Virgin Mary preexisted as the Archangel Michael. Given the Jewish background of the Gospel of the Hebrews and the probability that it preserved some authentic Jesus tradition not documented in the canonical gospels, one might argue that the Gospel of the Holy Twelve strikingly reflects the setting of the earliest, Jewish Christianity in a way foreign to modern readers.

Obviously, I don't think such an argument is sound. But the failure of this argument will be seen in a careful understanding of the 19th century contexts in which these texts were produced. While I have not done a depth study on this specific matter (and so you should not take my words as more than educated speculation), I suspect that the context in which Joseph Smith and early Mormons developed the idea of a Divine Mother who is the consort of God the Father overlaps with the context which produced the references to a Mother God in the Gospel of the Holy Twelve. At the very least, the fact that similar arguments can be produced for the Gospel of the Holy Twelve should give LDS scholars pause in their use of certain common arguments for the text's antiquity.

[jeremyevelandus]

Old Testament Lesson 21 - Gospel Doctrine #GospelDoctrineHelps In this lesson we go over selected verses in 1 Samuel 1-8. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX I want to give special thanks to The Interpreter Foundation for releasing Interpreter Scripture Roundtable 71: Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Lesson 21, God Will Honor.... Here are some of my other favorite youtubers and their videos! 855 Is Old Testament God Satan Part 1 Is the God of the Old Testament the same as the God of the New Testament "The God of the Old Testament Kills Children!!!" Can We All Understand the Bible Alike? What Made It Okay for God to Kill Women and Children In the Old Testament? Beekeeping - Queen Rearing Part 1 109. How Can a Loving God Kill People in the Old Testament? The Tree of Knowledge as the Veil of the Sanctuary - Jeffrey M. Bradshaw What Did Hugh Nibley Have to Say About the LDS Enoch and the Aramaic Book of the Giants? Is the God of the Old Testament the God of the New Testament? Robert Joseph: Māori Responses to the Mormon Church - A Commentary Abraham's Hebron Then and Now, Part 4: Ancient Hebron How can we reconcile the Old Testament God and the New Testament God? Abraham's Hebron Then and Now, Part 5: Mamre “By the Blood Ye Are Sanctified” - Jeffrey M. Bradshaw & Matthew L. Bowen Enos — Wrestling a Man and Seeing God's Face by Matthew L. Bowen What is the role of revelation in patriarchal blessings? Celebrating the new edition of Royal Skousen's Analysis of Textual Variants Abraham's Hebron Then and Now, Part 3: Jacob’s Well and the Tombs of Joseph and Rachel What is the significance of lineage in patriarchal blessings? Bill Donahue GivingAnAnswer Living Waters CBCintl Desiring God David Burns oneminuteapologist The Interpreter Foundation The Interpreter Foundation drcraigvideos The Interpreter Foundation The Interpreter Foundation ehrmanproject The Interpreter Foundation The Interpreter Foundation The Interpreter Foundation The Interpreter Foundation The Interpreter Foundation The Interpreter Foundation The Interpreter Foundation Take a look at The Interpreter Foundation stats and you'll understand why I am a fan. Video Url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8N5w_kls4M Video Title: Interpreter Scripture Roundtable 71: Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Lesson 21, God Will Honor... Username: The Interpreter Foundation Subscribers: 2.1K Views: 751 views ------------------------- More at https://youtu.be/BcsNSzeoFhA from https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3fvc-Ak3I0DDFudELbkO1g