Interesting Poetic Form in Mosiah 2

Years ago, someone (I do not recall who) pointed out the following parallelism in King Benjamin's speech in the Book of Mormon. Notice that it appears to be in verses (for lack of a better word), with each new verse set off with "behold" followed by two groups of parallelisms. The form looks like this:

Behold,

1.
1.

2.
2.

Behold,

3.
3.

4.
4.

Behold,

5.
5.

6.
6.

Behold,

7.
7.

8.
8.

Here it is:

[Verse 1] Behold,

I say unto you
that because I said unto you

that I had spent my days in your service,
I do not desire to boast, for I have only been in the service of God.

[Verse 2] And behold,

I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom;
that ye may learn that when

ye are in the service of your fellow beings
ye are only in the service of your God.

[Verse 3] Behold,

ye have called me your king; and if I,
whom ye call your king,

do labor to serve you, then ought not
ye to labor to serve one another?

[Verse 4] And behold also, if I, whom ye call your king,

who has spent his days in your service, and
yet has been in the service of God,

do merit any thanks from you,
O how you ought to thank your heavenly King!

(Mosiah 2:16-19)

There is no doubt in my mind that this was intentionally done by the author. For the sake of argument, if Joseph Smith were the author and not the translator, did he come up with this poem intentionally when he "made up" the Book of Mormon? If so, why? Also, if so, why didn't he ever point out such beautiful complexities in the Book of Mormon (as there are many such complexities)?

I suggest that Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon. Further, I submit he didn't even know such complexities existed in the text. The Book of Mormon is far more complex than its critics are willing to admit. It is interesting that most of the criticisms leveled against that holy book are against its origins, and not its content. Isn't it time that the critics took seriously the complexity of the book as confirming evidence of its veracity?

See more here: No Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

Closed Canon--Extra-Biblical?

Catholic and Protestant doctrines teach that the culminating revelation was Jesus Christ himself. After his coming, the need for revelation has ceased. All truth necessary for salvation is found in the Bile and the scriptural canon is closed. The Catholics, ironically, reluctantly admit that the revelation given thus far "has not been made completely explicit" (see below).

On the other hand, LDS believe that there can be no salvation without current revelation, that the canon of scripture will always be open (at least in mortality), and the Bible does not contain every essential word spoken by God. Further, the Bible cannot replace modern revelation.

Catholic Doctrine

" '...no new revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.' Yet even if revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries....Christian faith cannot accept 'revelations' that claim to surpass or correct the revelations of which Christ is the fulfillment, as in the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such 'revelations.' " (Catechism of the Catholic Church. [New York: Doubleday, 1995], pp. 27-28 paragraphs 66-67).

In other words, it took time "over the course of the centuries" to develop "Christian faith" since the completed revelation of ancient prophets and apostles "has not been made completely explicit." However, there will be no more revelation to clarify this confusion. Therefore, beware of any claiming to have more revelation (like the LDS)!

Protestant Doctrine

"Since the completion of the biblical books, there is no further divine inspiration for the writing of Scripture....Jesus Christ has done all that he can do in his redemptive purposes until his return to the earth. And in the available canon we have all the truths necessary to acceptance with God and for an abundant life. All the noncontradictory teachings of alleged recent revelations together do no add anything significant to scriptural teachings on God, mankind, sin, salvation, the church, and things to come. The commission of the apostles was unique and norepeatable...All the alleged revelations of spiritists, Latter-Day Saints, Christian Scientists, and others put together do not add anything significant to the teaching of Scripture...What people need nos is not more revelations but more faithfulness to the Spirit-illumined applications of biblical principles to specific situations" (Lewis, Gordon R., & Demarest, Bruce A., Integrative Theology. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan]. 1:116-117).

These authors would have us believe that:

1. There can be no more apostles.
2. There can be no more scripture other than what is in the Bible.
3. Jesus Christ can do no more for man's salvation than what he has already done.
4. LDS revelation does not add "anything significant" to our understanding of God.
5. et cetera

The message is clear: We are not to expect God to speak anymore to lead us to salvation. We have "scholars" who can do that for Him based on their interpretation of the Bible.

Mormon Doctrine

"From what we can draw from the Scriptures relative to the teaching of heaven, we are induced to think that much instruction has been given to man since the beginning which we do not possess now. This may not agree with the opinions of some of our friends who are bold to say that we have everything written in the Bible which God ever spoke to man since the world began, and that if He had ever said anything more we should certainly have received it. But we ask, does it remain for a people who never had faith enough to call down one scrap of revelation from heaven, and for all they have now are indebted to the faith of another people who lived hundreds and thousands of years before them, does it remain for them to say how much God has spoken and how much He has not spoken? We have what we have, and the Bible contains what it does contain: but to say that God never said anything more to man than is there recorded would be saying at once that we have at least received a revelation: for it must require one to advance thus far, because it is nowhere said in that volume by the mouth of God, that He would not, after giving what is there contained, speak again; and if any man has found out for a fact that the Bible contains all that God ever revealed to man he has ascertained it by an immediate revelation, other than has been previously written by the prophets and apostles" (Joseph Smith, The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976], pp 61-62).

"Now I will give my testimony. I care not for man. I speak boldly and faithfully and with authority. How is it with the kingdom of God? Where did the kingdom of God begin? Where there is no kingdom of God there is no salvation. What constitutes the kingdom of God? Where there is a prophet, a priest, or a righteous man unto whom God gives his oracles, there is the kingdom of God; and where the oracles of God are not, there the kingdom of God is not...The plea of many in this day is, that we have no right to receive revelations; but if we do not get revelations, we do not have the oracles of God; and if they have not the oracles of God, they are not the people of God. But say you, What will become of the world, or the various professors of religion who do not believe in revelation and the oracles of God as continued in His Church in all ages of the world, when He has a people on earth? I tell you, in the name of Jesus Christ, they will be damned; and when you get into the eternal world, you will find it will be so, they cannot escape the damnation of hell" (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976], p. 271).

The irony is obvious. The idea of a closed canon, i.e. all necessary truth is already found in the Bible, is extra-Biblical. Logically, if a person proclaims that doctrine and belief must be derived from the Bible alone (sola scriptura), shouldn't the Bible say so? Further, if revelation was supposed to cease, how shall we know it without a revelation saying so?

Final Thoughts

This is clearly one of the biggest differences, if not the biggest difference, between LDS and mainstream Christian beliefs. I must here admit, I have never found any arguments against modern revelation or a closed canon convincing. While it is one thing to argue that Joseph Smith didn't receive true revelations (in actuality), it is another to argue that he couldn't have received revelation (in theory).

Further Reading

For those who are interested, I recommend:

1. Elder Holland's recent General Conference talk: "My Words...Never Cease"
2. 2 Nephi 28:3-6, 26-31
3. 2 Nephi 29:6-11
4. Joseph Smith--History 1:12

PS. I'm going to be out of town until next Saturday. I don't think I'll be by here in during the interlude. However, feel free to comment.

From Everlasting to Everlasting

We Latter-day Saints have been strongly criticized for our belief that God is a progressive being who was once a man like us. This quote from Joseph Smith is well-known amoung our critics.

I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth...God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret...He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 435-436).

This conflicts, according to our critics, with the statements of scripture that God is "from everlasting to everlasting." I suppose it does conflict if you interpret "everlasting" to mean "forever and ever," but is that how it should be interpreted?

The Hebrew word olawm (Strongs 5769), literally means a time "concealed" or "out of mind." It can only be interpreted as "forever" in the future or the past figuratively. In other words, these passage literally speak of God as being God from a time "out of mind" from some point that is "concealed" from us.

President Joseph Fielding Smith commented:

"From eternity to eternity" means from the spirit existence through the probation which we are in, and then back again to the eternal existence which will follow...We all existed in the first eternity. I think I say can of myself and others, we are from eternity; and we will be to eternity everlasting, if we receive the exaltation. The intelligent part of man was never created but always existed. That is true of each of us as well as it is of God, yet we are born sons and daughters of God in the spirit and are destined to exist forever. Those who become like God will also be from eternity to eternity (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:12).

In other words, God is from everlasting to everlasting because he, like us, came from a spirit existence (one eternity) and then passed through a mortal probation into exaltation (the other eternity). Likewise, all mankind is from eternity, and those of us who are exalted will be to eternity. Eternity the place where spirit offspring is brought forth. We all came from one eternity. The exalted will in the hereafter bring forth their own spirit offspring. Therefore, they will be from eternity to eternity. This is in harmony with D&C 132:19-20.

And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they [the seeds?] continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

I bring this all up simply to show that this criticism, like many others, leveled against the doctrines of the LDS Church is based on the preconceived notions of "mainstream" Christianity. While most in "mainstream" Christianity would interpret "from eternity to eternity" as "for ever and ever," LDS interpret it to mean "from one eternity (the creation of spirit children) to the next eternity (the creation of spirit children)." So, LDS can insist on one hand that God was once a mortal man and on the other hand fully accept and agree with the scriptures that say he is "from eternity to eternity." For us, "from eternity to eternity" means exactly that: God was once a man like you or I. Further, we mortals can become "from everlasting to everlasting" and become gods ourselves just as God the Father has done.

For Good and Evil

I've always been impressed by the angel Moroni's prediction he made to Joseph Smith on the night of September 21, 1823.

He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people (Joseph Smith History 1:33).

When in Liberty Jail in March 1839, Joseph Smith received further light and knowledge on this topic. Said the Lord,

The ends of the earth shall inquire after thy name, and fools shall have thee in derision, and hell shall rage against thee; while the pure in heart, and the wise, and the noble, and the virtuous, shall seek counsel, and authority, and blessings constantly from under thy hand (Doctrine and Covenants 122:1-2).

I have over the past few months visited a particular anti-Mormon message board. No matter how many times it occurs I am always shocked by the kind of foul names and language used by these "Christians" toward Joseph Smith. I stopped by for about 10 minutes today and read the following:

"Smith is a liar."

"joseph smith got the inspiration for his practice of polygamy from his loins."

"i would imagine it does save God some on his energy costs when those who are as full of gas, dung, and hot air as smithy was, finally arrive at their eternal destination. kindling."

"Joseph Smith is burning in hell."

Joseph Smith was a "sexual predator."

Mormons "revere a pedophile prophet."

Joseph Smith was "a dirty old man taking advantage of his authority position."

"Joseph Smith was a false prophet."

Joseph Smith committed "treason, bank fraud, adultery, bore false witness" and then was "shot to death by all these of peeved folks that he took advantage of."

I ask my viewers, in light of Ephesians 4:15, Matthew 5:43-47; 7:1-2 and 1 Corinthians 11:16 if such behavior and language is befitting of a Christian?

Of course, such behavior is nothing new. When Samuel the Lamanite was called upon by the Lord to preach to the wicked Nephites, he upbraided them saying:

And now when ye talk, ye say: If our days had been in the days of our fathers of old, we would not have slain the prophets; we would not have stoned them, and cast them out. Behold, ye are worse than they; for as the Lord liveth, if a prophet come among you and declareth unto you the word of the Lord, which testifieth of your sins and iniquities, ye are angry with him, and cast him out and seek all manner of ways to destroy him; yea, you will say that he is a false prophet, and that he is a sinner, and of the devil, because he testifieth that your deeds are evil (Helaman 13:25-26)

In short, they "choose darkness rather than light" (Hel. 13:29). Could there be anywhere on earth a better description of how Joseph Smith was treated during his life and how some speak of him still to this day?

How grateful I am for the absolute knowledge I have received by the power of the Holy Spirit that Joseph Smith was called of God to bring forth the fullness of the everlasting gospel in preparation for the judgment to come as predicted by John in Revelation 14:6-7!

General Conference

I know it seems that everyone says this every General Conference, but I must say, this has been one of the best and most memorable conferences I've ever seen. It has truly been wonderful for me personally. I hope each of you have had an opportunity to see it and enjoy it.

Best Wishes,
Andrew

Special General Conference

Tomorrow we will sustain a new First Presidency of the Church and will likely sustain a new apostle. The new First Presidency has already been announced. Who will the new apostle be? At this point, most of us can only guess. Here are my guesses:

1. Richard G. Hinckley
2. Marvin Jensen
3. Jay Jensen
4. H. David Burton
5. Claudio Costa

Of course, it probably won't be any of those, but it's fun to guess. :) What are your guesses?

SANE Symposium

Students of the Ancient Near East at BYU (SANE) have been kind enough to invite students who are not studying the Ancient Near East to participate in their symposium this coming fall. I have submitted a research proposal for a paper to present and have been (conditionally) invited to present my paper this fall. If everything goes well, I'll be presenting a paper on November 7 at 9:30 AM. Below is a copy of my proposal:

The Greek word musterion, most often translated as "mystery" in the New Testament, had a specific meaning throughout much of the ancient world when Paul wrote his epistles. This word was used by the mystery religions of his day to refer to a secret rite or teaching that was given to those who were initiated. Since musterion generally referred to a religious ritual, the translator(s) of the Latin Vulgate frequently translated the word as sacramentum (Daniel 2:18; 4:6; Tobit 12:7; Ephesians 1:9; 3:3,9; 5:32; 1 Timothy 3:16; Revelation 1:20). Paul clearly employed this term in this way in 1 Corinthians to refer to esoteric rituals the "mature" Christians practiced (1 Corinthians 2:6). These Christians were those who were no longer "babes" in the gospel and who could endure "adult food" and not just "milk" of the gospel (1 Corinthians 3:1-2). In this context, Paul referred to himself as one who dispensed or oversaw the "mysteries" (1 Corinthians 4:1). Paul upbraided the Corinthian saints for not being ready yet to receive these mysteries.

These secret rituals and teachings had their origin in Christ's forty-day teachings according to Clement of Alexandria, and they clearly continued among some circles in the early Church as shown by Justin Martyr, the Clementine Homilies, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others. Due to heavy external persecution, all of the sacraments became "mysteries" being performed in secret to avoid the scrutiny of outsiders. Eventually the separate esoteric rituals spoken of by Paul were absorbed into the common rituals of baptism, confirmation, and the Lord's Supper and thus lost their separate identity.

This paper will first investigate the etymology and meaning of the word "mystery" and then demonstrate that these "mysteries" were a part of Pauline-Christianity. From this foundation, the paper will then show the continuance of these esoteric rituals and their absorption into the exoteric rituals resulting in their eventual loss in the early Christian Church. While not expressly tied to the ancient temple, there is considerable evidence that these teachings grew out of temple theology (see Barker, Margaret, The Secret Tradition).

I've read quite a bit on this topic, but for any of you early Church history buffs out there who may know of some interesting sources, any suggestions are welcome.

Tragic Death, Prayer, and Doctors

A real tragedy recently happened. A 11 year-old daughter was sick. The parents choose to pray for her and not to take her to a doctor. As a consequence, the child died. Some are questioning whether the parents should be prosecuted. Here's the story.

Thanks to my friend over at Life on Gold Plates for this interesting quote from Brigham Young:

You may go to some people here, and ask what ails them, and they answer, “I don't know, but we feel a dreadful distress in the stomach and in the back; we feel all out of order, and we wish you to lay hands upon us.”

“Have you used any remedies?”

“No. We wish the Elders to lay hands upon us, and we have faith that we shall be healed.”

That is very inconsistent according to my faith. If we are sick, and ask the Lord to heal us, and to do all for us that is necessary to be done, according to my understanding of the Gospel of salvation, I might as well ask the Lord to cause my wheat and corn to grow, without my plowing the ground and casting in the seed. It appears consistent to me to apply every remedy that comes within the range of my knowledge, and to ask my Father in heaven, in the name of Jesus Christ, to sanctify that application to the healing of my body; to another this may appear inconsistent.

If a person afflicted with a cancer should come to me and ask me to heal him, I would rather go the graveyard and try to raise a dead person, comparatively speaking.

But supposing we were traveling in the mountains and all we had or could get, in the shape of nourishment, was a little venison, and one or two were taken sick, without anything in the world in the shape of healing medicine within our reach, what should we do? According to my faith, ask the Lord Almighty to send an angel to heal the sick. This is our privilege, when so situated that we cannot get anything to help ourselves. Then the Lord and his servants can do all.

But it is my duty to do, when I have it in my power. Many people are unwilling to do one thing for themselves, in case of sickness, but ask God to do it all (Brigham Young, JD 4:24-25).

Apostle-Apologists?

As I've noted before, I've been reading the Journal of Discourses lately. It's occurred to me that the leaders of the church were more apologist oriented in those
days. With the exception of Elder Holland's recent General Conference talk, modern day LDS seldom here talks that have an apologetic flavor to them.

One interesting sermon was delivered by Elder Orson Pratt entitled "Distinguishing Characteristics Between the Latter-Day Saints and the Various Religious Denominations of Christendom."

I include here an interesting part of his sermon about the need for divine authority to administer baptism.

But suppose we speak still further on one principle, and that is the authority to baptize. I might be baptized by a person whom the Lord had neither called nor sent, and that baptism would never be acknowledged in the eternal worlds. I might be ever so sincere, and I might receive the ordinance from the hands of a man who, I really supposed, had the authority and who was a good, moral, upright man, and yet that baptism would not be acceptable in the sight of God, unless he did truly have divine authority.

How am I to know whether a man has divine authority or not? It is one of the easiest things in the world to know. I will tell you how you may know a man who has divine authority from one who has not. If you find a man who, though he may profess to be a Christian minister, says he does not believe in any later revelations than those given to St. John the Divine, and that he was the last to whom the Lord revealed himself, you may know that that man has no authority from God. Why not? Because the Bible says—"No man taketh this honor unto himself"—speaking of the Priesthood—"Save he be called of God as was Aaron." Now, turn to the Bible and see how Aaron was called, see if he was not called by name, by new revelation: that is, it was a new revelation to him. See if he was not called through Moses, the servant of God, who received a revelation commanding him to set apart his brother Aaron to the Priest's office, directing him what ordinance to use, how to set him apart, and giving all the particulars of his calling and ordination to the ministry, and what his duties were to be after ordination. All this was given by new revelation. No man can receive the Priesthood, neither officiate in its ordinances acceptably, unless he is called of God as was Aaron. If Aaron was called by new revelation, then all others who have this authority must be called in the same way, or their authority is not valid, and all ordinances under it are good for nothing.

This is the reason why the Lord commanded this people—the Latter-day Saints—to re-baptize all persons who come to them professing to have been baptized before (Journal of Discourses, 16:293).

So, a couple of questions for my readers.

1. What do you think of Orson Pratt's argument?
2. Do you wish the brethren were more apologetics-oriented today?

Happy Easter!

First of all, Happy Easter!

CNN, the Discovery Channel, PBS, and many others have shown documentary-type programs about Jesus the last few days. Something most had in common is that they discussed the star that signaled Jesus' birth. They then proceed to speculate about what may have happened to make such an impression on the "wise men." This gave me an idea for this post. Turns out, however, that I've already posted on the topic. So, I repeat it here for your viewing pleasure:

The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible reads "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him...When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was" (Matthew 2:1-2,9). This star seems to appear in the east.

The Book of Mormon prophet Samuel predicted this sign would happen in the New World, but with different terminology. Later, Nephi reports that the sign came to pass.

"And behold, there shall a new star arise, such an one as ye never have beheld; and this also shall be a sign unto you" (Helaman 14:5).

"And it came to pass also that a new star did appear, according to the word" (3 Nephi 1:21).

These passages indicated that the star is to "arise" or "appear" but does not mention anything about it being in the east.

Perhaps you're wondering what my point is. Perhaps this will make it clear. According to the translators of the ESV, Matt 2:1-2,9 should be translated:

"Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, 'Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.'...After listening to the king, they went on their way. And behold, the star that they had seen when it rose went before them until it came to rest over the place where the child was."

In other words, a new star appearing "in the east" is an idiom that means "a new star arises" or comes to be. This is reflected quite well in the Book of Mormon where it is not predicted that the start will be "in the east," but that it will "arise" or "appear." This is, at worst, another example of a lucky guess on Joseph Smith's part. At best, it is another evidence for the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon.