Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[Melissa G]

Posted by Polaris..." Neither you nor I can definitively say that. I don't completely disregard all physical evidence, but I do acknowledge that physical evidence is often subject to many interpretations and is therefore a fairly unstable foundation for drawing any sort of absolute conclusions."

Suely you jest, that view is the absolute opposite to how it is. Any physical evidence can be fiited into the Archeaological picture, built painstakingly by scholars and field workers over the last 150 years, from C14-dating to Stratigraphy. It's the same with Linguistics. Years and Years of study have given us the knowledge we have today of ancient languages and written texts.

It's texts such as the Bible and BOM, which are open to speculation as to the validity of what of the incredible claims they make. Lack of evidence is not proof of evidence. Lack of evdidence is proof of non-validity.

Melissa G

 

[DeepShadow]

Any physical evidence can be fiited into the Archeaological picture, built painstakingly by scholars and field workers over the last 150 years, from C14-dating to Stratigraphy.

Right. Which is why archaeologists and geologists have creation dates for the Sphinx that are separated by about 2000 years. What's a couple thousand years between friends?

It's the same with Linguistics. Years and Years of study have given us the knowledge we have today of ancient languages and written texts.

Says the woman who blew off the greatest paleolinguist in modern times in favor of her own opinion.

William Albright proposed four conditions that needed to be satisfied before a text could be validated, Melissa. The Book of Mormon meets all four. But you never thought much of Albright's professional opinion, did you?

 

[Autodidact]

I didn't say it has nothing to do with evidence, but it definitely entails more than just physical evidence.

To a certain extent... most religion is based on faith after all.

Neither you nor I can definitively say that. I don't completely disregard all physical evidence, but I do acknowledge that physical evidence is often subject to many interpretations and is therefore a fairly unstable foundation for drawing any sort of absolute conclusions.

Not all areas, however for things of a spiritual nature I most definitely rely primarily on spiritual confirmation.

So if the evidence tended to disprove your belief in your specific God, you would give it up?
What do you mean, to a certain extent. Is your faith stronger than a Muslim's faith? Should your faith be granted some special status? If so, why? If not, why only to a certain extent?
So you don't completely disregard all physical evidence? How much do you disregard? How do you know when to disregard it?
No, you are wrong. Physical evidence is not emphatically not subject to different interpretations. If we're both looking at the same dial, and it reads 136.7, there's no interpretation involved. OTOH if your holy book says...well, anything, that's subject t interpretation, and there is no way to resolve the differing interpretations.

So you think that physical evidence is an unstable foundation for drawing all conclusions, or only absolute ones? How are absolute conclusions different from ordinary conclusions? If you were sick what kind of evidence would you use to decide what treatment to take? If you were accused in a court of law, what kind of evidence would you want the jury to consider? What kind of evidence do you want your mechanic to use when s/he fixes your car?

O.K., you have your spiritual confirmation, and the Muslim has hers. How do you tell who's right?

 

[Autodidact]

Then to whom did you pray?

To God, of course, the God in question.

Do you even believe in spiritual truth?

I don't even know what it could mean. How is it different than regular truth?

 

[Autodidact]

William Albright proposed four conditions that needed to be satisfied before a text could be validated, Melissa. The Book of Mormon meets all four. But you never thought much of Albright's professional opinion, did you?

These four?

Does it correctly reflect "the cultural horizon and religious and social ideas and practices of the time'? Does it have authentic historical and geographical background? Is the mise-en-scène mythical, highly imaginative, or extravagantly improbable? Is its local color correct, and are its proper names convincing?"

So you're asserting that the BoM correctly reflects the cultural horizon and religious and social ideas of the people of the Americas? In what way?

What did Albright think of the validity of the Book of Mormon?

 

[Autodidact]

Right. Which is why archaeologists and geologists have creation dates for the Sphinx that are separated by about 2000 years. What's a couple thousand years between friends?

Well at least there actually is a sphinx.

 

[DeepShadow]

These four?
So you're asserting that the BoM correctly reflects the cultural horizon and religious and social ideas of the people of the Americas? In what way?

Actually, we have a clearer comparison on the other end: the Book of First Nephi meets all four criteria WRT the Old World.

What did Albright think of the validity of the Book of Mormon?

He was impressed by several things, especially the presence of Egyptian names that he didn't think any American at the time would have access to, such as Paanchi or Pahoran. He figured that Joseph Smith might have been "some kind of religious genius."

But Melissa didn't think much of Albright. I wonder why?

 

[DeepShadow]

Well at least there actually is a sphinx.

Sure, but by that token, we've probably already found Lehite artifacts, and just know them by another name. The same thing happened with the Hittites until we discovered whole troves of Hittite artifacts mislabeled in other collections. And this within a few years of scholars insisting there were never any Hittites, that they were a Biblical myth.

No one's arguing whether not there is a Sphinx, but as the geologists have dated the Sphinx's creation before the archaeologists say there were Egyptians, there is debate about whether it should rightly be called "Egyptian," or whether it needs to be relabeled.

And for that, the example is apt.

 

[Melissa G]

Well at least there actually is a sphinx.

Let's get it straight re the Sphinx, one geologist < Robert Schoch > claimed the sphinx is much older than convential Egyptologists date it. Schoch worked with Hancock and West, both mavericks outside mainstream scholarship. As a matter of fact , the good Dr Schoch has broken with the Alternatives as we call them. So, we have one geologist who disagrees with other geologists, and the whole of the academic Egyptological community. These Alternatives wanted to push the sphinx back to 10,500 bce, the time that Cayce said Atlanteans arrived in Egypt. Quite funny really, but these people have made a fortune out of writing nonsense...

Melissa G

 

[Melissa G]

Deep Shadow posted: " He was impressed by several things, especially the presence of Egyptian names that he didn't think any American at the time would have access to, such as Paanchi or Pahoran. He figured that Joseph Smith might have been "some kind of religious genius." "

Well, he's wrong, Paanchi and Pahoran are not Egyptian names, they may constitute some hebrew rendering of Egyptian names such as one finds in the OT. But I'm telling you, they are not Egyptian as you've written them. For instance, the OT, calls the kings of Egypt, Pharoahs ( in English), well this is a rather late title of the Egyptian Kings, from the Egyptian Pr-(3 , Per-Aa. Meaning Great House, ie Egypt itself. I have no idea how Pr-Aa is rendered in Hebrew, but it comes to us via Greek to English as Pharoah.

Melissa G

 

[sojourner]

That doesn't mean that the word "church" can't accurately describe their religious organizations. "Church" is a pretty general word after all.

Actually, it does mean that. When the Greeks began to describe what it was they were doing, they described themselves as ekklesia, which was a different term than the one they used in describing groups or buildings devoted to any of the Greek pantheon. Since the Shinarites were not Greek, and could not have been familiar with either the Greek language or the Greek mind set, they very probably would have called their religious activity by another name. If they were, indeed, a proto-Judaic group, they probably would have used terms like "temple" instead of "church."

The word "church" is a specific term for a specific kind of religious group.

Well, if Joseph was going to translate a word into english he would use a 19th century english word. Translation consists of converting thoughts and ideas from one language to another. The word "church" fits perfectly with what was being described in an ancient language. What word should he have used to more accurately describe a group of people who worshipped the same being and honored the same authority? "Church" seems to fit just fine to me.

It could not have been "the same being." Jesus was not born until centuries later. It is precisely the Incarnation that makes Jesus special as a member of the Trinity. Whatever it was that "appeared" to the descendants of Shinar was definitely not Jesus, for Jesus had not yet been born.

How could they have honored "the same authority?" That authority was not given until Jesus gave it to his Apostles, as you claim.

Therefore, what these people were experiencing was not "church" -- it was something else.

Only by your extremely narrow definition.

Because it is a very specific thing that demands a narrow definition, for the sake of clarity.

Joseph wasn't attempting to define the word "church" he was simply using it when referring to the religious organizations that existed during BoM times. According to 19th century english "church" very accurately describes those organizations.

Then, could you please explain why, in 19th-century English, what Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and Muslims did was not called "church?" Because "church" didn't describe what they were doing. I think even less so the activities of people thousands of years before Christ.

You're getting hung up on a very narrow definition of the word "church".

Oh, OK. So was Smith restoring a building? Was Smith restoring a denomination? Let's be real broad with our definition, so that we can apply it any way that suits us. It's precisely my point that, only when one narrows the definition to specifics, calling a spade "a spade," so to speak, that one arrives at the truth, which you seem to treasure.

Joseph was called to restore priesthood authority, doctrinal truths, and a religous organization (led by prophets and apostles) that had been lost/corrupted over the years.

And the BOM fits into that scheme...how? Since the Church was begun by Jews in first-century Judea, and spread by Greek counterparts, the Church adopting as their scriptures the Hebrew texts, the gospel writings and the epistles, how does looking to a group of ancient people on another continent (who no longer existed at the time of Christ), with a completely different set of scriptures, not Hebrew in origin, help at all? Wouldn't that be restoring the Church to something other than it could have been in first-century Judea and Greece? Is this a weak attempt at tringulating the truth between Biblical sources and something else?: "It must be true, because these 'ancient people' believed the very same thing!'"

I wonder why it is that, in all the archaeology ever done on ancient writings, of everything that has ever been recovered (such as Deuteronomy in ancient times, and the deuterocanonicals more recently -- as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls) these "plates" are the only ones not widely studied by scholars and admitted as deuterocanonicals? Plus, these writings are the only ones not now extant. Why would God take them away, if God did not take the others away, too?
Why are the canonical scriptures written on the same stuff and verified by the same people as the non-canonical stuff...with the exception of the BOM? Why would an ancient offshoot of proto-Hebrews write stuff down on plates way, way, way before their Middle-Eastern counterparts began writing their stories down? Would they not have been largely an oral society like their kin...or like their American counterparts, the Indians?

In that sense Joseph was called to restore the true church of Christ.

It appears that Smith "restored" nothing. It does appear that Smith was successful in starting something new.

 

[Autodidact]

Actually, we have a clearer comparison on the other end: the Book of First Nephi meets all four criteria WRT the Old World.

And WRT the New World?

He was impressed by several things, especially the presence of Egyptian names that he didn't think any American at the time would have access to, such as Paanchi or Pahoran. He figured that Joseph Smith might have been "some kind of religious genius."

Complete quote please? All I can find on the net are these two words, "religious genius", nothing about whether he thought that BoM met his criteria. Do you know whether he ever commented on this question?

But Melissa didn't think much of Albright. I wonder why?

Probably because he died in 1971, and many advances have been made since then? Oddly enough, none of them support the BoM--still not a single chariot wheel or modern horse bones in the Americas.

 

[Autodidact]

Sure, but by that token, we've probably already found Lehite artifacts, and just know them by another name. The same thing happened with the Hittites until we discovered whole troves of Hittite artifacts mislabeled in other collections. And this within a few years of scholars insisting there were never any Hittites, that they were a Biblical myth.

So you're just sure they're gonna find them--some day. They just haven't found them yet. Sorry, Deep, things that haven't been found aren't evidence in favor of your proposition.

No one's arguing whether not there is a Sphinx, but as the geologists have dated the Sphinx's creation before the archaeologists say there were Egyptians, there is debate about whether it should rightly be called "Egyptian," or whether it needs to be relabeled.

Exactly. And that's how the Sphinx is different from Nephite artifacts in the Americas--it exists. Archeologists disagree about its dating. They don't disagree about the existence of Nephite artifacts, which should be as big as the Sphinx, in the Americas. They all agree that they don't.

 

[DeepShadow]

Probably because he died in 1971, and many advances have been made since then? Oddly enough, none of them support the BoM--still not a single chariot wheel or modern horse bones in the Americas.

What about the paleolinguistic advances--still the best evidence, and Albright's purview, after all? Here's something that cropped up since Albright's death, presented here courtesy of Jeff Lindsay:

Non-LDS scholar William S. Kurz has examined numerous ancient farewell speeches and identified 20 elements that appear commonly (no one speech has all 20). Sixteen of the elements are directly present in Benjamin's speech, and two others are implied. No other ancient farewell speech has a greater number of these elements. Further, Benjamin's speech is well focused on the most important elements typical of Old Testament traditions. For details, see William S. Kurz, "Luke 22:14-38 and Greco-Roman Biblical Farewell Traditions," Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 104: 251-268 (1985); also see William S. Kurz, Farewell Addresses in the New Testament (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1990), both as cited by Welch and Ricks, p. 115).

According to Kurz, as summarized by Welch and Ricks (pp. 91-94), the 20 common elements from ancient farewell addresses are:

1. The summons. The speaker calls people together to here his last instructions.
2. The speaker's own mission or example. The speaker reviews his life and what he has done, and urges his listeners to follow his example.
3. Innocence and discharge of duty.
4. Impending death. The speaker states that death is near, but shows courage rather than fear, sometimes commending his soul to God.
5. Exhortation. Listeners are urged to follow commandments they have been given by the speaker, to be courageous, etc.
6. Warnings and injunctions. Consequences of sin are discussed to help the people.
7. Blessings. In conjunction with the warnings, blessings are also offered (e.g., for obedience).
8. Farewell gestures. Though more common in Greco-Roman literature, acts such as kneeling can be farewell gestures.
9. Tasks for successors. Final orders given to the listeners, often conferring specific responsibilities.
10. Theological review of history. Reviewing the past to show the works of God (e.g., the Creation, delivery from captivity, etc.).
11. Revelation of the future.
12. Promises. Biblical farewell speeches commonly include reference to eternal glory (e.g., Christ in Luke 22 and Mattathias in 1 Maccabees 2).
13. Appointment or reference to a successor.
14. Bewailing the loss. Friends and followers may mourn the speaker.
15. Future degeneration. Warnings about the disobedience of future generations are made. The speaker is not responsible for this, however.
16. Covenant renewal and sacrifices.
17. Providing for those who will survive. Instructions are given to maintain guidance and comfort for people after the death of the aging leader.
18. Consolation to the inner circle. The speaker comforts his closest associates.
19. Didactic speech. Review of principles to teach listeners what to do.
20. Ars moriendi or the approach to death. Dealing with the approach of the leader to death itself, this element is less common and is found only in a writing of Plato and perhaps implicitly in Josephus.

More of these elements are present in King Benjamin's speech than in any other Biblical farewell address, making it arguably the best example on record of an ancient farewell speech in the ancient Jewish style.

Welch and Hague also point out that Benjamin's speech is soundly aligned with the most important aspects of ancient biblical farewell speeches:

[FONT=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Kurz has singled out four of his twenty elements as fundamentally characteristic of addresses in the Old Testament and the Old Testament Apocrypha, as opposed to the Greco-Roman tradition: (1) the speaker's assertion of innocence and fulfillment of mission, (2) the designation of tasks for successors, (3) a theological review of history, and (4) the revelation of future events. All four of these characteristically Israelite elements appear prominently in Benjamin's speech. Furthermore, Benjamin emphasizes the covenant relationship between God and man, and his text ends with an express covenant renewal. No preoccupation with death occurs here, as it does in the Greco-Roman texts. Benjamin's speech is not only one of the most complete ancient farewell addresses known anywhere, but it also strongly manifests those elements that are most deeply rooted in early biblical tradition. [/SIZE][/FONT]​

For Benjamin's assertion of innocence, see Mos. 2:15 (cf. Mos. 2:12-14 and 2:27-28). For tasks for successors, see Mos. 1:15-16, 2:31, and 6:3. A theological review of history is found in Benjamin's review of his administration (Mos. 2, such as verses 11, 20, 31, 34, 35) and his references to Moses and the Israelites (Mos. 3:13-15). Future events are prophesied in Mos. 3: 1,2,5-11, where the coming of Christ is foretold.

Other farewell speeches in the Book of Mormon were given by Lehi, Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Mosiah, Mormon, and Moroni. Adding King Benjamin's makes seven total. Each of them have over half of the 20 elements identified by Kurz, though King Benjamin's speech is the most complete, more complete than any single biblical speech. I find that impressive. As is shown in other chapters in Welch and Ricks, the speech also offers beautiful chiasms, follows patterns from ancient Jewish festivals, follows ancient patterns of assembly and atonement symbolism, etc. It is powerful evidence that the Book of Mormon is an ancient Semitic document, written by ancient prophets with Hebraic roots. An online copy is available for Chapter 11 by John W. Welch, "Parallelism and Chiasmus in Benjamin's Speech." (I hope that it is provided with proper permission.) The online version show pages 249-318, but my copy of the book spans pages 315 to 410, so it must be a different edition.

 

[Autodidact]

What about the paleolinguistic advances--still the best evidence, and Albright's purview, after all? Here's something that cropped up since Albright's death, presented here courtesy of Jeff Lindsay:

I'm happy to answer your questions--right after you answer mine. Thanks.

 

[DeepShadow]

So you're just sure they're gonna find them--some day. They just haven't found them yet.

No, I'm saying they've already been found, but not interpreted fully. There's a huge difference.

Sorry, Deep, things that haven't been found aren't evidence in favor of your proposition.

Nice straw man, I never said that.

Exactly. And that's how the Sphinx is different from Nephite artifacts in the Americas--it exists. Archeologists disagree about its dating. They don't disagree about the existence of Nephite artifacts, which should be as big as the Sphinx, in the Americas. They all agree that they don't.

Begging the original question.

It makes me laugh how people will insist that archaeologists haven't found any evidence for the Book of Mormon, when the archaeologists fail to recognise such evidence where they find it. Archaeologists say the Book of Mormon is false because it talks about horses, but Columbus found lions (and, well, Indians) and they understand that he was transferring idioms.

What about the Works of Ixtlilxochitl? He talked about groups of people coming here across the sea, splitting into groups and having wars, etc. and his dates line up pretty well. How does that jive with "no evidence at all"?

 

[DeepShadow]

I'm happy to answer your questions--right after you answer mine. Thanks.

What answers are you waiting on? Regarding Albright's criteria WRT the New World? The problem is that there's too large an ethnographic gap to make a match. That's not the same as saying they contradict; like with the "horses" idiograph issue, there may not be a contradiction, but it's just fuzzier than the Old World comparison.

 

[DeepShadow]

Complete quote please? All I can find on the net are these two words, "religious genius", nothing about whether he thought that BoM met his criteria. Do you know whether he ever commented on this question?

I don't know that he ever commented on the Book of Mormon WRT his criteria, no.

 

[Autodidact]

No, I'm saying they've already been found, but not interpreted fully. There's a huge difference.

Really, Nephite or Lammanite artifacts have been found in the Americas? Tell me more: what, and where? Does mainstream academic archeology recognize them as such? Iron, steel, wheat, horses, etc? Chariots?

Nice straw man, I never said that.

What exactly are you saying has been found?

Begging the original question.

Not begging anything. A clear, positive assertion: Nephite/Lammanite artifacts, animals and agricultural products have not been found in the New World, either by early european settlers, or archeologists. Do you disagree?

It makes me laugh how people will insist that archaeologists haven't found any evidence for the Book of Mormon, when the archaeologists fail to recognise such evidence where they find it. Archaeologists say the Book of Mormon is false because it talks about horses, but Columbus found lions (and, well, Indians) and they understand that he was transferring idioms.

Oh, I see. The problem is that all those professional archeologists are incompetent, and you know much better. What? Columbus found lions in Hispanolia? Evidence, please.

What about the Works of Ixtlilxochitl? He talked about groups of people coming here across the sea, splitting into groups and having wars, etc. and his dates line up pretty well. How does that jive with "no evidence at all"?

Please cite a single archeological find of a single Nephite artifact anywhere in the Americas.

 

[Autodidact]

What answers are you waiting on? Regarding Albright's criteria WRT the New World? The problem is that there's too large an ethnographic gap to make a match. That's not the same as saying they contradict; like with the "horses" idiograph issue, there may not be a contradiction, but it's just fuzzier than the Old World comparison.

What do you mean by a large ethnographic gap? Because in fact what we know is that the people described in the BoM bear no resemblance to any New World peoples. They're no more like American Indians than they are like Maori people.

It's easy to understand that Joseph Smith could plagiarize the Bible and draw on folk knowledge of the ANE but lacking knowledge of the people of the New World, he simply got it all wrong.