19th century language and ideas in BOM

I had similar thoughts while reading the book “Misquoting Jesus” by Ehrman. Essentially, I was wondering how bible transcription errors of the KJV made their way into parallel verses in the BOM.

http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1507&hilit=+misquoting&start=20

What became a bigger issue for me is the upfront and consistently 19th century portrayal of Jesus as God. Our LDS message is essentially that Prophets from the beginning (Adam, Moses, Abraham, Lehi, etc.) were clearly taught about Jesus Christ as God that would die for our sins. We then generally figure that these clearly Christian teachings taught in every dispensation were somehow scrubbed from the historical record by conniving individuals and had to be restored by JS.

I wrote the following on the book review page for Misquoting Jesus:

My much bigger issue is JS seems to retroactively inserting 19th century Christianity into ancient texts. The BOM is not a very good handbook for modern Mormon beliefs (our beliefs and teaching have evolved mightily since the time it was written). The BOM is not a very good handbook for pre-christian beliefs precisely because it injects 19th century Christian beliefs into time periods where they do not belong. The BoM is entirely too Christian for its supposed ancient origen! Ehrman spends a fair amount of time discussing changes that were made to the biblical text in order to make Jesus seem more in control, more fully divine, more believable as a Savior of the world (the original gospel of Mark paints Jesus in the most human light as a tragic figure). JS continues in this tradition by adding a parallel work where Jesus is unquestionably divine.

Was Jesus divine? Is He a demi-god? Is He God? The writing in the gospels is somewhat ambiguous on this point and gives plenty of room for contradictory interpretations. One theory that eventually became orthodox was the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Some bible translators were so motivated in their search for evidence of the Trinity in the bible that they literally added it into 1 John 5:7-8. All that fuss over two tiny verses. JS went two giant leaps further and added the doctrine of the Trinity and the Godhood of Jesus into the narrative over and over again:

2 Nephi 11:7 “For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time.”

2 Nephi 31:21 “.And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.”

Alma 11:44

3 Ne. 11:27

3 Ne. 11:36

3 Ne. 20:35

3 Ne. 28:10-11

Morm. 7:7

Morm 3:21 “Jesus, whom they slew, was the very Christ and the very God.”

D & C 20:28 “Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.”

JST Luke 10:22 “And no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it”

JST 1 Tim. 2:4 “which is in Christ Jesus, who is the only begotten Son of God, and ordained to be a Mediator between God and man; who is one God and hath power over all men”

The original 1830 copy of the BoM was even more explicit in emphasizing Godhood.

 And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh.(1830)

 And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God. (1 Nephi 11:18) (1837 and current version)

 And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, even the Eternal Father! (1830)

 And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, even the Son of the Eternal Father! (1 Nephi 11:21) (1837 and current version)

 These last records…shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world. (1830)

 These last records…shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world. (1 Nephi 13:40) (1837 and current version)

In summary, the divine nature of Jesus was not exactly clear in the original bible manuscripts. This prompted some bible translators and transcribers to make alterations to clarify, emphasize, or just insert the divinity of Jesus into the narrative. JS created a parallel story that clarified, emphasized, and inserted the divinity of Jesus into the narrative times 10.

You mentioned in your blog post about influential individuals taking the Christian ideas and debates that had gone before and giving them a twist or adding to them in important ways. You also mentioned the term Midrash. I am interested to see where you go with that in part two of your blog post.

Here’s part II. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/book-of-mormon-modern-expansion-theory-midrash/

Summary:

–BOM contains 19th century content and historical anachronisms. is that ok?

–LDS have mistaken fundamentalist type view of the Bible which creates false expectation of scripture in general

–Joseph Smith used the word translate improperly, when he said translate for the JST he was not translating, he was adding inspired commentary

–church sanctions catalyst theory for the Book of Abraham, so it’s OK to use it for BOM also

–couple theories to deal with modern content in BOM 1) Ostler’s expansion theory 2) a view of BOM similar to liberal Christian scholar view of Bible

Finally! When you posted about the Provo Tabernacle I thought perhaps you had forgotten about this.

I can tell that you put a lot of thought into this post and I thank you for it. I personally do not believe in literal gold plates or historical Nephites.

My reasoning is two fold.

1st) Evidence that the plates were not physical.

This is similar to the naturalistic theory you discussed in your blog. (JS was able to make interesting stones that he found/obtained into items capable of transmitting holy writings. We certainly have precedent for his making the ordinary into something extraordinary.) We do not have the plates as a historical artifact to examine. The plates sometimes are reported to disappear or transport themselves. In addition to the plates there was an entire room filled with plates and the sword of Laban inside the hill Cumorah. The search for such a room has proved fruitless. Apologists have suggested that the visit to the room was either a visionary experience or the viewers were themselves transported to another hill in Mesoamerica. Joseph did not appear to need the plates for his translation process. He reportedly spent time with the Nephites during his annual trips to the hill (before he had the plates or began the translation) and would recite portions of their history to his family in the evenings. If JS was able to talk directly to angelic Nephites or view their history through vision/revelation then why were the plates even needed as an intermediary? The plates were also not always in the same room when the translation was taking place. What function did they serve?

2nd) Is a lack of outside evidence that corroborates the narrative of the BoM.

I will not really go into details here but suffice it to say that I do not believe there is significant outside evidence to convince one of the historical nature of the Nephite population. As an aside, I wonder when Richard Bushman says that he believes in the BoM as historical if he could be playing word games. The BoM is a historical document like the US constitution is historical. That does not mean that they relay historical facts from a time other than their own. Regardless of Bro. Bushman’s true feelings on the matter I speculate that there are limits to what a man like him can publicly say and still maintain credibility within the church. Of course one can never prove a negative therefore it can never be conclusively proven that Nephites did not exist. Members are advised to take it as a matter of faith.

I do believe that Joseph created NEW scripture and placed it in an ancient setting. In doing so I agree that JS was carrying on the tradition employed by scripture makers from all time (one could call this Midrash or Psuedepigrapha as a sort of semi-accurate shorthand). The Israelites grounded their stories in the founding traditions of their nation (Abraham, Isaac, & Moses). The early Christians grounded their stories as a fulfillment of the ancient Israelite scriptures. Thus the new religion took upon itself an ancient feel. JS too created a new religion with an ancient feel. It is portrayed as a restoration of the only true religion to have ever existed.

In this I am closest to the Sacramental theory that you describe. JS created new scripture either in collaboration with God or in tribute to God. This scripture can serve as a vehicle for individuals to commune with the divine. Many have testified to the BoM’s effectiveness in tapping into spiritual experiences.

Finally, I am wondering about the embellished church history stories. Let’s take the story of the fine china in the walls of the Kirtland temple or of the seagulls eating the crickets in the great salt lake valley. If the pioneers had been ancient Israelites and their oral traditions had been put down into what eventually became scripture what would distinguish these stories from the rest of scripture? I believe that I have a conceptual understanding of inspired/holy men creating scripture. What I find even more interesting is the process through which an entire community can collectively create scripture through their stories.

Again CIT, I thank you for the work you are putting into this. Just like the limited geography theory, I look forward to a time when these other theories become more acceptable viewpoints to have at church and still be in full fellowship.

Great reply, thanks. I LOVE this last part. I actually got a little emotional imagining inserting this into our scriptures. Who cares if it didn’t happen exactly the way it’s told? These are beautiful stories because they show how we relate to our God. We’re not totally sure, but we think just maybe he might love us enough to send seagulls to eat our crickets. My great-great-great-great grandmother wrote in her journal that she awoke one night and looked out her window from her home across from the Nauvoo temple as it was being constructed and saw a heavenly host assembled on the roof of the temple playing the most heavenly music she had ever heard. Do I think that really happened? I don’t know. Probably not, if you asked me to take a lie detector test. But I still get goosebumps when I read the account.