Anachronisms

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Shawn wrote:

What 19th century stuff do people see in it?

As for 19th century issues, the famous Ohio preacher, Alexander Campbell, whom Sidney Rigdon had followed before joining forces with Joseph Smith, described the Book of Mormon as containing “every error and almost every truth discussed in New York for the last ten years.” He went on to say that Joseph through the BOM…

Quote:

…decides all the great controversies – infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, religious experience, the call to the ministry, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even the question of free masonry, republican government, and the rights of man.

I’ve heard this quote used as evidence of how useful and efficient the BOM is. The problem is that it is too efficient. Remember how the NT spends so much time dealing with the circumcision crisis? The OT goes into so many specific Law of Moses details that seem somewhat primitive, backwards, and irrelevant to the modern reader that it can be very difficult to read. The BOM (by contrast) spends almost its entirety with a clear Christ centered message (hundreds of years before the birth of Christ) and then sets about to resolve all the “great controversies” from the 19th century that were not sufficiently addressed in the Bible.

It has been said that the BOM was written for our time. That much is clear. The question is – at what point does the BOM become so immersed in the trappings of the 19th century, that the simplest explanation becomes that it originated from the 19th century? There is still room for faith in an ancient translation – but the 19th century narrative can be just as compelling.

I strongly disagree with Campbell’s analysis. Many of the things listed are very basic (repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, church government, religious experience) and it would be odd if they were not addressed in the Book of Mormon. I also think those issues were addressed inefficiently (which is not a bad thing). Rather than simply going through the issues, the following occur:

-It tells of a prophet leaving Jerusalem

-He named a river and a valley after his sons (what’s the point of that?)

-Nephi has two sets of plates, the Small and Large and takes quotes from Brass Plates (why isn’t it s simpler record?)

-The description of Nephi’s vision regarding the land of promise and the downfall of its inhabitants

-The vision of the discovery and colonizing of America and the state of Gentile apostasy

-There are descendants of Nephi, Laman, Zoram, and Ishmael

-Jacob quotes Zenos relative to the allegory of the tame and wild olive trees (What’s the point of Jacob quoting another prophet? Why wouldn’t the allegory just be written out without complicating it?)

-The book of Omni – (What’s the point of Chemish and Abinadom’s writings?)

-Another group of people is discovered – they came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah

-Mormon cuts in to explain how he has abridged the plates and fills in a gap in the history

-Ammon decides to search out people who had left Zarahemla and finds the people of Limhi

-Those people tell of yet another group whose records they had discovered

-The elaborate account of King Noah and his wicked priests

-Mention of gold, silver, and ziff (Why?!)

-It is said that Christ will be born “at Jerusalem” (Joseph Smith definitely knew that He was born in Bethlehem)

-King Lamoni is converted, followed by his father (Why doesn’t it just provide inspired teaching without the elaborate stories?)

-The accounts of wars between the Nephites and Lamanites

-The descendants of Zoram are revisited

-Alma quotes Zenos and Zenock rather than teaching on his own

-Houses made of cement

-Ammaron hides the sacred records

-Details of more wars and wickedness

-A record of people who came to the land many centuries earlier is inserted

-Moroni explains that he had supposed he was done writing, but then writes more as he wanders

-Two epistles from Mormon are inserted

-All of Mormon’s comments throughout much of the record

-The many, many names of people and places mentioned

There are many, many unnecessary details. I don’t think a 19th origination is a simple explanation. Like mackey said:

mackay11 wrote:

There are several accounts of people seeing the translation happening (head in hat etc). If it’s a fraud, who was in on it? Was the dictation pre-written and memorised for show? There is lots of evidence in the original manuscript that this was a dictation and not a pre-prepped document. I’ve seen very little evidence from critics of how that bit of the ‘fraud’ was done. If they were all in on it (all the Smiths, the Whitmers, Cowdery, Harris and various people who were passing through), how were they ALL kept quiet.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

…I’ve already talked about the dark skin. What I have to say about Alma’s words to Corianton is not new – you’ve probably already heard it a few times. Alms told him:

Quote:

…Now this is what I have against thee; thou didst go on unto boasting in thy strength and thy wisdom. And this is not all, my son. Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel. Yea, she did steal away the hearts of many; but this was no excuse for thee, my son. Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted. Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?…Behold, O my son, how great iniquity ye brought upon the Zoramites; for when they saw your conduct they would not believe in my words. (Alma 39)

You can see my emphasis on the plurals “these things” and “crimes.” Corianton was guilty of:

1. Boasting in his own strength and wisdom

2. Forsaking the ministry

3. Getting with the harlot Isabel

4. Setting a bad example for the Zoramites

…Alas, many in the church do teach that sexual sin alone is next to “the shedding of innocent blood.” Does “the shedding of innocent blood” always refer to murder or can it also refer to torturing people? I ask that because when I think of the seriousnous of sexual sin, I always think about how much more heinous it is for someone to torture another.

Maybe there is more to the story than the harlot part (I.E. forsaking his ministry, being a bad example, etc.) but even in that case I still don’t see how all of this combined should really add up to being worse than things like attempted murder, kidnapping, aggravated assault, armed robbery, etc. unless God has a very unusual way of judging things that doesn’t make much sense to the average person. It just sounds like the kind of puritanical assertion I could easily see some small-town American around 1830 making off-the-cuff without really putting much thought into it.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

I strongly disagree with Campbell’s analysis. Many of the things listed are very basic (repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, church government, religious experience) and it would be odd if they were not addressed in the Book of Mormon. I also think those issues were addressed inefficiently (which is not a bad thing). Rather than simply going through the issues, the following occur….[snip]…..There are many, many unnecessary details. I don’t think a 19th origination is a simple explanation.

You make some great points Shawn. The BOM is extrordinarily complex and defies simple categorization. I have no doubt that its core is inspired – the stuff we disagree on is simply the window-dressing.

[Anonymous]

If anyone wants to read a thread about the passage in Alma about sexual sins and how I believe it is misread – BADLY – in the Church, here is the link:

http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2417&p=29606&hilit=murder#p29573

I will bump it up for further discussion.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

Maybe there is more to the story than the harlot part (I.E. forsaking his ministry, being a bad example, etc.) but even in that case I still don’t see how all of this combined should really add up to being worse than things like attempted murder, kidnapping, aggravated assault, armed robbery, etc. unless God has a very unusual way of judging things that doesn’t make much sense to the average person. It just sounds like the kind of puritanical assertion I could easily see some small-town American around 1830 making off-the-cuff without really putting much thought into it.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I am not even agreeing with what I wrote at this point! There are other ways to look at it. Elder Bednar’s recent talk made sense to me:

Quote:

The means by which mortal life is created is divinely appointed. “The first commandment … God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife”…Thus, marriage between a man and a woman is the authorized channel through which premortal spirits enter mortality. Complete sexual abstinence before marriage and total fidelity within marriage protect the sanctity of this sacred channel.

The power of procreation is spiritually significant. Misuse of this power subverts the purposes of the Father’s plan and of our mortal existence. Our Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son are creators and have entrusted each of us with a portion of Their creative power. Specific guidelines for the proper use of the ability to create life are vital elements in the Father’s plan…

Because a physical body is so central to the Father’s plan of happiness and our spiritual development, Lucifer seeks to frustrate our progression by tempting us to use our bodies improperly…Violating the law of chastity is a grievous sin and a misuse of our physical tabernacles. To those who know and understand the plan of salvation, defiling the body is an act of rebellion and a denial of our true identity as sons and daughters of God.

I think it’s important to emphasize that it’s particularly bad for “those who know and understand the plan of salvation” to break the law of chastity. When I think about it as abusing a sacred power, then it seems more serious.

Still, does that make it worse than kidnapping and those other things? I sometimes think “What Alma said was ‘a single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion’ and was meant only for Corianton.” (I quoted this)

EDIT: I also like Ray’s thread about this.

[Anonymous]

When I read Jesus saying: “..consider the lilies of the field..” In 3rd Nephi, with exacting language as is found in an old 1600’s English translation of a Greek text of a handed down story put to parchment long after the mortal ministry, it gives me a sinking feeling. The sermons of Jesus are too similar between the NT and the BOM. The idea that the savior would regurgitate language while teaching does not sit well with me anymore.

While some may say it is the spirit that informed these stories, that they are multiple witnesses of Jesus, I cannot currently accept that Jesus would not deliver a more personalized address to the Nephites.

As a non-American I also have trouble with the the story of the Title of Liberty, which does not feel genuine to my heart. It feels as if it is grasping for some patriotic connection or common ground that I do not share, but perhaps it is just my perception.

There are other things too, but I do not wish for a knock-down drag-out fight with the BOM, as there is much in there that is profound and of good report. It has just been increasingly uncomfortable to read and accept as a whole, and that makes me very sad.

[Anonymous]

I agree. I skip that part to read Matthew.

[Anonymous]

Reflexzero wrote:

When I read Jesus saying: “..consider the lilies of the field..” In 3rd Nephi, with exacting language as is found in an old 1600’s English translation of a Greek text of a handed down story put to parchment long after the mortal ministry, it gives me a sinking feeling. The sermons of Jesus are too similar between the NT and the BOM. The idea that the savior would regurgitate language while teaching does not sit well with me anymore.

While some may say it is the spirit that informed these stories, that they are multiple witnesses of Jesus, I cannot currently accept that Jesus would not deliver a more personalized address to the Nephites.

As a non-American I also have trouble with the the story of the Title of Liberty, which does not feel genuine to my heart. It feels as if it is grasping for some patriotic connection or common ground that I do not share, but perhaps it is just my perception.

There are other things too, but I do not wish for a knock-down drag-out fight with the BOM, as there is much in there that is profound and of good report. It has just been increasingly uncomfortable to read and accept as a whole, and that makes me very sad.

I agree. The king follett discourse had 4 people taking live notes at the time it was given. They have both minor wording and a couple of substantial “doctrine” differences between each version.

The idea that the KJV is somehow the perfect version of what he said (to the extent that even the narrators words are identical) is a stretch too far. I can only conclude two things:

a) The spirit inspired him to use words thst also happened to have identical words to the KJV that he owned (for consistency of message)

b) Joseph copied it out of his KJV NT either from memory or reading directly from it.

doesn’t have to be evidence of fraud (though it could be if wanted)

At least with Isaiah and Jesus’ words we can at least say there is an obvious similar source.

I find it more troubling when I find sections with less overlap. Eg the words of Peter or Paul being quoted verbatim.

Again, given I believe both Bible and Book of Mormon are divine, it’s possible that Joseph could be inspired to use the same words as KJV.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Shawn wrote:

I strongly disagree with Campbell’s analysis. Many of the things listed are very basic (repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, church government, religious experience) and it would be odd if they were not addressed in the Book of Mormon. I also think those issues were addressed inefficiently (which is not a bad thing). Rather than simply going through the issues, the following occur….[snip]…..There are many, many unnecessary details. I don’t think a 19th origination is a simple explanation.

You make some great points Shawn. The BOM is extrordinarily complex and defies simple categorization. I have no doubt that its core is inspired – the stuff we disagree on is simply the window-dressing.

Hey, I really appreciate your response. I may have been getting a little argumentative and you disarmed me in a positive way.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

Hey, I really appreciate your response. I may have been getting a little argumentative and you disarmed me in a positive way.

No problem Shawn. You are among friends here! :wave:

[Anonymous]

Just a thought: When talking about how the 19th century seems to creep into the BOM, consider that regardless of WHEN it was written, it was written for a 19th century audience, whether Joseph Smith made the whole thing up, or whether it was written exactly as it details in the Book itself. It would have been inspired to be written in a manner that would appeal to people in the time in which it was to be revealed, which in this case was the 19th century.

[Anonymous]

arik wrote:

Just a thought: When talking about how the 19th century seems to creep into the BOM, consider that regardless of WHEN it was written, it was written for a 19th century audience, whether Joseph Smith made the whole thing up, or whether it was written exactly as it details in the Book itself. It would have been inspired to be written in a manner that would appeal to people in the time in which it was to be revealed, which in this case was the 19th century.

This is true … but for me it is easier to assume that the 19th century upbringing of JS seeped into the translation process than to assume that God gave each of the anchient writers such a great understanding of the 19th century. I just don’t find any other examples for it. Part of the reason that Isaiah is so difficult to understand is that a fair understanding of anchient culture and geography is required/helpful. I guess the gospels focused on different things based upon the intended audience – but a foriegn audience 1500+ years into the future? I’m having trouble wrapping my head around that one.

[Anonymous]

Yup, I have no problem with the KJV wording, since it was Joseph’s religious wording – what was available to the “translator”, so to speak. I wouldn’t expect the Book of Mormon to end up with extensive Old English or Chinese, for example.

I have no belief whatsoever that it was the wording of the original writers, if there were original writers – only that it represents a message that was as consistent to original meaning as possible.

[Anonymous]

Or perhaps it’s just that some concepts are timeless. I have no problem thinking that God used ancient writers to reach a modern audience. I recently read a commentary suggesting the Psalms were inspired in such a way as to speak to each generation without regard to era, that they were written in such a way as to inspire musical arrangements from each generation.

Interestingly, I believe I’ve found at least one instance of anachronism in the KJV of the Bible: In the Book of Job, there are numerous referneces to astronomical features such as Orion and Arcturus. Unless I’m very mistaken, these are Greek names given LONG after the era of Job, who is considered to be a contemporary or near-contemporary of Abraham. Some of the words and concepts used, even in the KJV, are likely used to identify things to an audience in a time other than that of the author.

[Anonymous]

Job is often thought to have been written in the Persian period, so anachronisms aren’t really surprising. I’d be a little more cautious in calling the KJV renderings anachronisms, though. It is more likely the translators used the names that would be familiar with their readers.

[Author]

Posts