For LDS only...some tricky questions

[Truth_Faith13]

True_Faith13 said : I haven't actually read the Book of Abraham myself, my question stems from critical websites one of which reads..”
Rather than gain information from “critical websites”, you should actually read the Book of Abraham yourself. Your base information is incorrect and thus your conclusions will be faulty. For example :


True_Faith13 said : “the original Papyri have been examined by both LDS and non-LDS Egyptologists”
This is incorrect. The original “long scroll” was never found and only small portions of other papyri were found (they were thought to have been destroyed in fire) and it is THESE portions that were portions of the book of the dead.


True_Faith13 said they : “have nothing to do with Abraham or anything mentioned in the LDS scripture”
This is incorrect. The book of the dead, in it’s multiple forms, contains multiple themes that parallel both ancient judeo-christian theology as well as restored versions of that ancient theology.


True_Faith13 said : “the Book of Abraham cannot have been translated from the scrolls as Joseph Smith claims and is therefore a false book of scripture.”

This is incorrect : As I mentioned, you do not have the original scrolls to compare source for the Actual Book of Abraham. Secondly, the theology inside the book parallels ancient Judeo-Christian religion. It would not damage either ancient Judeo-Christian theology nor would it damage a restoration of ancient theology if scrolls did not match.

Consider the ancient theology itself. For example, 1) the Pre-existence of spirits of mankind. 2) Jesus as a pre-eminent spirit, chosen to be the redeemer 3) Life as a moral school that serves as a tutoring in experience in good and evil as a basic preparation of spirits to live in a social heaven, having learned and mastered social rules that support a heavenly existence in harmony and happiness for ever. 4) The existence of a world of spirits after death and before resurrection 5) The concept of a just and varied level of eternal reward 6) Christ as the heir of a kingdom, etc.

None of these early theologies that are present in the various books of Abraham, whether modern or ancient, would be damaged in the slightest even if the Book of Abraham did not exist. The Book of Abraham is simply a better and more clear version of the ancient texts.

Even if Joseph Smith had never lived, and had never brought early Judeo-Christian doctrines to modern consciousness, the ongoing discoveries of ancient historical religion, their doctrines and their texts would still indicate what early Judeo-Christian doctrines were. And importantly, these early doctrines parallel those of the Book of Abraham. You mentioned you’ve never read the Book of Abraham. Read it BEFORE you read the anti-literature.

More of the earliest Judeo-Christian texts have been discovered in the 19th century than in all other centuries combined. Almost all have come into modern knowledge and into English translation only after Smith died. Yet, their theology matches his. How does one create thousands of matching discrete parallels to ancient theology, without source documents or revelation?

For examples :

Joseph Smith correctly places Abraham into a milieu of Idolatry.
He correctly describes Abraham’s FATHER’S worship of idols.
He describes the construction of idols (including both stone AND wooden idols)
He includes the theme of children being sacrificed.
He points out that those who will not worship idols were killed.
He includes the theme of Abraham himself being brought to be killed or sacrificed.
He includes the association of Terah with the attempt to kill Abraham.
He includes the binding of Abraham.
He includes the theme of Abraham being rescued by an angel (or by God) from death
He includes the little known theme that altar and idols were destroyed (though Islam has history on this subject)
He includes subtle details regarding Abraham’s prayer to be saved.
Joseph includes the details regarding Abraham being heir to the Priesthood.
He correctly links Abraham to Noah ( other than historians, how many know of this connection?)
He included the “smiting” of the priest who was to kill abraham.
He includes the improbable (yet authentic) history of Abraham’s knowledge of astronomy (including the details of having learned from ancient records and from God’s teaching.
He includes the relatively unknown traditions about Abraham having taught astronomy.
He includes Abrahamic knowledge regarding the creation of the universe and this world.
He includes Abraham’s claim to have records of the ancients.
He includes a claim that Abraham left his own records for others.
He includes the almost unknown (even today) history of the founding of Egypt.
He includes the rare tradition of the Abrahamic Pharoah’s descent from Ham and Canaan.
He even includes the tradition of Abraham having sat on a king’s throne.

AND WE’VE NOT LEFT THE FIRST CHAPTER. Read the book before you read the anti-mormon literature.




Regarding the facsimiles :

You say Egyptologists disagree with Joseph’s translation. While this is true, your source failed to point out that the Egyptologists disagree with eachs others translation. They all thought each other were interpreting it incorrectly.

It is a comedy of errors when you look at their own attempt to interpret the facsimiles. For example, if one considers just one of the elements in Facsimile #1, the “Bird”. One modern Egyptologist (quoted by watchmen) says the bird is “The spirit or “ba” of Hor (The deceased fellow)” but Deveria disagrees and says the bird is “the soul of Osiris under the form of a hawk. Spaulding also accepts Deverias authority. Petrie disagrees and says the bird “is the hawk Horus”. Breasted disagrees with all of them and says the bird represents “Isis” in the hawk form. Sayce, mace, and Mercer were either unable or unwilling to commit to a meaning of anything in the facsimile.

The point is that none of them agree with each other on the simplest item in the facsimile.


The second point is that the claim for the facsimile is that it is a Hebraic story about Abraham, and is a Hebrew redaction. This creates problems for someone who is trying to force an egyptian meaning onto a Hebrew redaction. The initial Egyptologists scanned the facsimile and declared it is just like countless thousands of others that have been discovered. However, it is different, and not a single other equivalent one has been found. Not one.

I pointed out some of the underlying issues to Watchmen and Prestor john as we discussed the Book of Abraham as follows


Clear
ειφισεδρω

Thank-you so much Clear for this very informative post! (I had to edit the quote to allow me to post!) I am reading the scriptures starting with the Book of Mormon so will get to the Book of Abraham at some point!

 

[Clear]

True_Faith13 :

Hi.

1) Does it make sense to you that if the base theology brought to modern religious consciousness by Joseph Smith is the same as the ancient Judeo-Christian Theology, then the base concept of restoration of ancient theology is correct?

2) Where are you in your reading of the Book of Mormon?

Clear
φιειτωσεω

 

[Katzpur]

Okay, I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to by "textual problems," but since I have found the linguistic evidence for The Book of Mormon to be the most compelling of all of the evidence in its favor, 'm going to start with a discussion of some of this evidences.

Let's start with the use of chiasms. If you know what a chiasm is, I apologize for the explanation I'm about to give. We've never spoken about the subject before, though, so it might be a good thing to review it any any rate. Chiamsus is a style of writing used in ancient Semetic literature. It consists of arranging a series of statements in one order and then repeating them (though generally not word for word) in the opposite order. Here, from Isaiah, is a simple example of the use of chasmus:

(a) Make the heart of this people fat,
(b) and make their ears heavy,
(c) and shut their eyes;
(c') lest they see with their eyes,
(b') and hear with their ears,
(a') and understand with their heart...

To me, one of the most fascinating little tidbits of all is that Joseph Smith never once mentioned these chiasms to anyone. If he'd wanted to argue that the book truly was translated from an ancient Hebrew record, bringing up the chaisms would definitely been worth bringing up. So why didn't he? Easy. He didn't have a clue what a chaism even was! How do you accidentally mimic an ancient Semetic literary form? You don't!

It was not until the 1820's, that two British scholars first identified examples of chiamus in the Bible, and published their findings. Is is possible that Joseph Smith had access to these publications and read them? Here is how one LDS scholar, John Welch, responded to that question:

"There exists no chance that Joseph Smith could have learned of this style [chiasmus] through academic channels. No one in America, let alone in western New York, fully understood chiasmus in 1829. Joseph Smith had been dead ten full years before John Forbes' book was published in Scotland. Even the prominent scholars today know little about chiasmic forms beyond its name and a few passages where it might be found. The possibility of Joseph Smith's noticing the form accidentally is even more remote, since most biblical passages containing inverted word orders have been rearranged into natural word orders in the King James translation. And even had he known of the form, he would still have had the overwhelming task of writing original, artistic chiasmic sentences. Try writing a sonnet or multi-termed chiasm yourself: your appreciation of these forms will turn to awe. If the Book of Mormon then is found to contain true chiasmal forms, should it not be asserted without further qualification that the book is a product of ancient Hebrews culture?"

Now, granted, it would not be extremely difficult to write a very simple chiasm. Heck, Dr. Seuss does it all the time. But we're not talking about simple chiasms. Here is one of the shorter examples of a chiasm in the Book of Mormon:

Mosiah 3:18,19:
(Men will drink damnation to their souls unless)
(a) They HUMBLE themselves
(b) and become as little CHILDREN
(c) believing that salvation is in the ATONING BLOOD OF CHRIST;
(d) for the NATURAL MAN
(e) is an enemy of GOD
(f) and HAS BEEN from the fall of Adam
(f') and WILL BE forever and ever
(e') unless he yieldeth to the HOLY SPIRIT
(d') and putteth off the NATURAL MAN
(c') and becometh a saint through the ATONEMENT OF CHRIST
(b') and becometh as a CHILD
(a') submissive, meek and HUMBLE.

There are actually instances in the Book of Mormon where entire chapters are written in this poetic form (Alma 36 is an example), and many of the instances of are highly complex and intricate. While it is possible to actually create a chiasm accidentally, such a chiasm would undoubtedly be simple and easy to recognize. But to use this form in such elaborate, multi-layered patterns as are found in the Book of Mormon is truly remarkable.

Incidentally, new instances of chiasmus have been discovered in the Book of Mormon as recently as within the last fifteen years, and non-LDS scholars (notably J.H. Charlesworth, Angelico Salvatore di Marco, David Noel Freeman, and Stanislav Segert) have also noted and been impressed with the presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.

 

[Watchmen]

The chiasms "evidence" never did it for me.

1. As you point out, Katz, there are chiasms in the Bible, and Joseph Smith may have been simply imitating what he saw in the Bible. And he had been studying the Bible since a young age.

2. There are chiasms in the Doctrine and Covenants. So, Joseph may not have known what they were, but they were part of his style.

3. While not given the name "chiasms" until much later, early Hebrew scholars had certainly recognized the poetic structure of early writings.

 

[Katzpur]

The chiasms "evidence" never did it for me.

To me, they are one of the most compelling evidences there are.

1. As you point out, Katz, there are chiasms in the Bible, and Joseph Smith may have been simply imitating what he saw in the Bible. And he had been studying the Bible since a young age.

Seriously? The likelihood of that is virtually nill. He had been "studying" the Bible, but certainly not from a linguistic perspective. With a third or fourth grade education, he wouldn't have known one in 1829 if it had bitten him in the behind.

2. There are chiasms in the Doctrine and Covenants. So, Joseph may not have known what they were, but they were part of his style.

Simple chiams are one thing. Entire chapters written in this forum are quite another.

3. While not given the name "chiasms" until much later, early Hebrew scholars had certainly recognized the poetic structure of early writings.

I'd ask you to provide some proof (although I don't think you could) except that this is not a debate thread. I know you no longer believe in Mormonism, Watchmen, but please do keep that in mind. If you want to PM Truth_Faith and give her your perspective, there's certainly no rule prohibiting that.

 

[Watchmen]

To me, they are one of the most compelling evidences there are.

Seriously? The likelihood of that is virtually nill. He had been "studying" the Bible, but certainly not from a linguistic perspective. With a third or fourth grade education, he wouldn't have known one in 1829 if it had bitten him in the behind.

Simple chiams are one thing. Entire chapters written in this forum are quite another.

I'd ask you to provide some proof (although I don't think you could) except that this is not a debate thread. I know you no longer believe in Mormonism, Watchmen, but please do keep that in mind. If you want to PM Truth_Faith and give her your perspective, there's certainly no rule prohibiting that.

I thought we were discussing, not debating. I gave my opinion of chiasms just as you gave yours. Testimony of the Book of Mormon comes from prayer and the Spirit - not chiasms.

I'll give you an example. I'm an attorney. Law school teaches students to write using the IRAC formula: Issue; Rule; Analysis; Conclusion. Most lawyers write using this form or something similar. Sometimes we have cases against individuals who are not represented by an attorney. They file papers with the court, and sometimes, because they've spent time reading the writings of actual attorneys, they unknowingly write a brief the follows the IRAC method. They've never heard of it. They've never learned it. They might be dumb as a doornail. But it comes through because they're emulating what they've read and become familiar with.

I'd be happy to debate this (or any other topic) if you'd like.

Best.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

True_Faith13 :

Hi.

1) Does it make sense to you that if the base theology brought to modern religious consciousness by Joseph Smith is the same as the ancient Judeo-Christian Theology, then the base concept of restoration of ancient theology is correct?

2) Where are you in your reading of the Book of Mormon?

Clear
φιειτωσεω

1) yes I think that makes sense!
2) not very far I'm on about chapter 8 of 1 Nephi. I don't get much chance to sit down and properly read. Also as I'm reading, I am doing some background reading/research on what I am reading.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Okay, I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to by "textual problems," but since I have found the linguistic evidence for The Book of Mormon to be the most compelling of all of the evidence in its favor, 'm going to start with a discussion of some of this evidences.

Let's start with the use of chiasms. If you know what a chiasm is, I apologize for the explanation I'm about to give. We've never spoken about the subject before, though, so it might be a good thing to review it any any rate. Chiamsus is a style of writing used in ancient Semetic literature. It consists of arranging a series of statements in one order and then repeating them (though generally not word for word) in the opposite order. Here, from Isaiah, is a simple example of the use of chasmus:

(a) Make the heart of this people fat,
(b) and make their ears heavy,
(c) and shut their eyes;
(c') lest they see with their eyes,
(b') and hear with their ears,
(a') and understand with their heart...

To me, one of the most fascinating little tidbits of all is that Joseph Smith never once mentioned these chiasms to anyone. If he'd wanted to argue that the book truly was translated from an ancient Hebrew record, bringing up the chaisms would definitely been worth bringing up. So why didn't he? Easy. He didn't have a clue what a chaism even was! How do you accidentally mimic an ancient Semetic literary form? You don't!

It was not until the 1820's, that two British scholars first identified examples of chiamus in the Bible, and published their findings. Is is possible that Joseph Smith had access to these publications and read them? Here is how one LDS scholar, John Welch, responded to that question:

"There exists no chance that Joseph Smith could have learned of this style [chiasmus] through academic channels. No one in America, let alone in western New York, fully understood chiasmus in 1829. Joseph Smith had been dead ten full years before John Forbes' book was published in Scotland. Even the prominent scholars today know little about chiasmic forms beyond its name and a few passages where it might be found. The possibility of Joseph Smith's noticing the form accidentally is even more remote, since most biblical passages containing inverted word orders have been rearranged into natural word orders in the King James translation. And even had he known of the form, he would still have had the overwhelming task of writing original, artistic chiasmic sentences. Try writing a sonnet or multi-termed chiasm yourself: your appreciation of these forms will turn to awe. If the Book of Mormon then is found to contain true chiasmal forms, should it not be asserted without further qualification that the book is a product of ancient Hebrews culture?"

Now, granted, it would not be extremely difficult to write a very simple chiasm. Heck, Dr. Seuss does it all the time. But we're not talking about simple chiasms. Here is one of the shorter examples of a chiasm in the Book of Mormon:

Mosiah 3:18,19:
(Men will drink damnation to their souls unless)
(a) They HUMBLE themselves
(b) and become as little CHILDREN
(c) believing that salvation is in the ATONING BLOOD OF CHRIST;
(d) for the NATURAL MAN
(e) is an enemy of GOD
(f) and HAS BEEN from the fall of Adam
(f') and WILL BE forever and ever
(e') unless he yieldeth to the HOLY SPIRIT
(d') and putteth off the NATURAL MAN
(c') and becometh a saint through the ATONEMENT OF CHRIST
(b') and becometh as a CHILD
(a') submissive, meek and HUMBLE.

There are actually instances in the Book of Mormon where entire chapters are written in this poetic form (Alma 36 is an example), and many of the instances of are highly complex and intricate. While it is possible to actually create a chiasm accidentally, such a chiasm would undoubtedly be simple and easy to recognize. But to use this form in such elaborate, multi-layered patterns as are found in the Book of Mormon is truly remarkable.

Incidentally, new instances of chiasmus have been discovered in the Book of Mormon as recently as within the last fifteen years, and non-LDS scholars (notably J.H. Charlesworth, Angelico Salvatore di Marco, David Noel Freeman, and Stanislav Segert) have also noted and been impressed with the presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.

Thank-you Katz, no I didn't know what a chiasm was so thank-you for that explanation!

Just to put my critical hat on for a moment.. is there anyway Joseph Smith could have been more educated than people think he was? How often do they occur in the Bible? And is there a similar passage in the Bible?

In regards to textual errors, I've copied and pasted the follow from an article comparing the BoM with the KJV...

Although a work of great literature, the King James Version does suffer somewhat in accuracy. There are basically three forms of translation errors that need to be considered:

Variant Readings: While not strictly a translation problem, it can be shown that where the King James Version differs from the Minority Text of the Greek New Testament, the Book of Mormon usually follows. This will be considered later.

Technical Terms: This is one of the greatest problems of the King James Version, although not really the fault of the translators. Generally, the use of incorrect words for some terms can be blamed on a less than perfect understanding of Hebrew vocabulary during the Elizabethan era. This, too, will be considered later.

Translation Errors: Although few in number, the King James Version does contain a number of undeniable incorrect translations. Again, this can sometimes be blamed on an imperfect understanding of Hebrew, but is also possibly due to the fact that the Authorised Version was basically translated by committee, with the various members having different strengths and weaknesses in the original languages. Generally, we find that when the King James Version commits a translation error, the Book of Mormon usually follows. Three examples will suffice.

II Nephi 12:16, a quotation from Isaiah 2:16 reads as follows `And upon all the ships of the sea, and upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.' The problem here is that the word `pictures' should be translated as `ships', which makes more sense. The New International version reads `..and every stately vessel...'.

As an aside, this verse adds the phrase `upon all the ships of the sea' to the King James wording. Mormon scholars have often pointed out that this follows the Septuagint, and should thus be considered a more ancient reading of the Biblical text. In fact, this is not entirely true. Neither the Septuagint nor the Masoretic text have both phrases; they include either one or the other. A close examination of the text will reveal the reason for this. Isaiah 2:16 is part of a poetic section which employs a device known as a rhyming couplet. Each stanza of the poem consists of two complimentary phrases. The Book of Mormon, however, has three phrases at this section, and thus could never have been an original part of the text. The obvious conclusion is that Smith had access to a Septuagint translation, or, more likely, to a commentary on Isaiah that included the Septuagint reading.

A more serious translation error affects Isaiah 9:1, copied into the Book of Mormon as II Nephi 19:1 `...and afterwards did more grievously afflict by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations.' A translation error in this verse of Isaiah has given the text almost the opposite meaning to the original. The phrase `did more grievously afflict' should be rendered as `honour' in English. Thus the New International Version reads `...In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles...'.

Again, as an aside, the Book of Mormon adds the qualifier `Red' to the King James Version. A glance at a map of Palestine will show why this rendering is impossible. The Red Sea is located on the Southern border of Palestine, over 250 miles from the Sea of Galilee.

A third example is found in II Nephi 21:3, a quotation from Isaiah 11:3. The phrase `And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord...' should read `...and he will delight in the fear of the LORD...' as in the New International Version. Here, the Hebrew word `rawah', in this context, is correctly translated `delight in' as opposed to `quick'.

Mention should be made of II Nephi 16:2, where the 1830 version follows the King James' incorrect usage of the word `seraphims' as a plural for `seraphim'. This was corrected in later versions of the Book of Mormon text, although it has never been corrected in the King James Version.

 

[Katzpur]

I thought we were discussing, not debating. I gave my opinion of chiasms just as you gave yours. Testimony of the Book of Mormon comes from prayer and the Spirit - not chiasms.

We've been friends for years, Watchmen, and I'm not going to make a federal case of this. I'll just post the rule verbatim, and trust you to make the judgment call:

All DIR (Discuss Individual Religions) forums are for the use of members who identify with those groups or practices. Debating is not permitted in DIRs; debates between members of specified groups should be posted in Same Faith Debates. Members who do not identify with a DIR group may only post respectful questions; we recommend creating a thread in the Religions Q&A instead where there is more freedom to comment. DIR forums are not to be used as a cover to bash others outside of the DIR group.

I have a feeling this is going to get down to a "letter of the law" versus a "spirit of the law" kind of thing.

 

[Katzpur]

Just to put my critical hat on for a moment.. is there anyway Joseph Smith could have been more educated than people think he was?

I'd say the chances of that being the case are about zero. Joseph Smith's life has been fairly well documented. He grew up in a rural farming community and had just three years of formal education. After that, he spent his days working on his father's farm -- which was pretty typical of how life would have been for someone in his circumstances. Your asking me the question, though, reminded me of a little piece of satire you might find worth reading: One Day in the Life of Joseph Smith, Amazing Translator of the Book of Mormon. It's actually one of Jeff Lindsay's pages. Jeff is a chemical engineer and LDS apologist. I've been reading his work for years, and have found as much good information there as on FAIR. It's really just presented in such a way that answers to the questions you've asked are easy to zero right in on.

How often do they occur in the Bible? And is there a similar passage in the Bible?

They do occur in the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments. I'm not sure how often, because I've never personally noticed one. Unless the chiasm was very, very simple, you'd really kind of have to be watching for it to find it. Furthermore, you'd have to at least know of the existence of this literary form in order to know to bother looking for it. If you google chisms in the Bible, you'll find a few articles on the subject. I am not aware of a similar passage to the one I gave as an example that is found in the Bible.

In regards to textual errors, I've copied and pasted the follow from an article comparing the BoM with the KJV...

I'm not even going to attempt to address this issue since I know I'm ill-equipped to do it justice. None of these examples really strike me as deal-breakers when it comes to accepting The Book of Mormon.

FAIR probably has some articles addressing these "textual errors." And again, I can't recommend Jeff Lindsay's website highly enough, particular this page.

LDS FAQ: Mormon Answers

You will find many, many of your questions answered there, and in an easy-to-read style that, nevertheless, contains a great many footnotes, should you wish to verify anything he has to say. (He also has a section on the Book of Abraham.)

 

[Watchmen]

True_Faith13 :

Hi.

1) Does it make sense to you that if the base theology brought to modern religious consciousness by Joseph Smith is the same as the ancient Judeo-Christian Theology, then the base concept of restoration of ancient theology is correct?

2) Where are you in your reading of the Book of Mormon?

Clear
φιειτωσεω

Clear, I'm not sure I understand your first question. Can you please clarify? Thanks.

 

[Clear]

Hi True_Faith13

Restoration as a repair
The fact that you understand the basic concept that bringing back ancient religious concepts into modern consciousness is a restoration is important. The concept of restoration in this case, not only means a transfer of principles from antiquity back to modern consciousness, but it also involves a repair; an organizing; an arranging of these principles into their earlier relationship and earlier context.

Religious scholars of early texts continue to discover and move toward many of the earliest Judeo-Christian doctrines that Joseph Smith restored (e.g. pre-existence). One difference is that Smith brought them back in an organized and mature form while the historical discovery is often hap-hazard and it takes time for their recognition and their organization into a coherent religious model as advanced as Joseph Smiths.

Patterns found in restorations of ancient principles - an example from the current chapter you are reading
For example, there are great cosmic themes that occur in ancient Judeo-Christian literature that repeat themselves in various ways inside authentic revelatory patterns. The chapter of the Book of Mormon you are currently in (1 Nephi chapter 8) describes one of these repeating patterns regarding the sifting of mankind into four groups. If you pay more attention to anti-mormon distractions than you do to the Book of Mormon, you may miss these patterns.

In the bible it is called “The Sower and the Seed”. In the Book of Mormon it is called “The tree of Life”, in Hermas (in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus New Testament) is it "the Stones of the Tower". In the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is "the four trees". (The point is, that it is an ancient pattern that repeats itself in various texts and various forms.

A) The version Jesus tells in Matthew 13, involves 4 seeds that fall into different types of environments :
1) the way side,
2) the stony places,
3) seeds among thorns, and finally
4) the “good ground”).
Jesus explains the four Groups.
a) The first group doesn’t even understand the gospel or its significance.
b) The second group hears and starts in the word, but abandons it with tribulation.
c) The third group also receives it but abandons it in favor of worldly riches.
d) The fourth group consists of those who receive and “bear fruit”.


B) The version in the Book of Mormon (starting in chapter 8 where you are) describes the same 4 groups.
1) Those who are feeling "towards that great and spacious building" (their goal)
2) Those in the path but are lost in the mist of darkness. (They start correct but then abandon it)
3) Those on the path who partake of the tree and then become ashamed. (They partake but abandon the tree due to tribulation and shame)
4) Those who partake of the tree and remain.
Nephi explained the four groups
a) Those who seek the pride of the world (the great and spacious building ) of 1 Nephi 8:31-2;
b) The second group are those who start in the path towards the tree of life but become lost in the Mists (the temptations of the devil) 1 Neph 8:21-23.
c) The Third group relieve of the fruit of the tree but then abandon it as they become ashamed) 1 Nephi 8:24-28.
d) The fourth group receive of the Fruit of the tree and “are saved” 1 Nephi 8:3.

C) In the 4th Century New Testament Codex Sinaiticus, Hermas describes the building of a tower (the church) from various types of Stones found in the world.
a) The first group of stones are not even considered for use as they are “broken in pieces” and unfit.
b) The second group are those who are thrown far from the tower and rolling off the road “trudging through wastelands”.
c) The third group are those “that fall near the waters”, but are “not able to roll into it”.
d) The Fourth group are the stones that are fit for use and are brought and used in the building of the church.

You can see the pattern. A similar pattern appears in the 4Q dead sea scrolls, but it is called “The four trees”.

If you allow yourself to become distracted and attempt to pay attention to a hundred other things besides concentrating on the data you are reading, you will likely miss important patterns that would have been more obvious had you been paying attention. If the parable of the sower; the vision of the tree of life; the parable of the building of the tower, etc are correct; you (and the rest of us) are also part of the four groups and may choose which one to belong to. We all may choose what sort of data to pay attention to and concentrate on or whether to be distracted and overwhelmed by a hundred questions instead of figuring out which single question is the most important and how to answer that one first.

Principles which harmonize with your own spirit
IF the ancient Judeo-Christian concept that God is using mortality as a school, used to give the spirits of mankind a moral education as part of preparing them to experience and understand and master moral and social principles that will prepare them to learn to live in a social heaven in joy and harmony forever, then there will be some principle to attract and gather those who are willing and wanting to learn those principles.

IF there is a single beckoning religious principle that God would use as a clarion call, a marker, a symbol around which individuals from around the world will gather toward, it will probably not be the principle of correct archaeological facts, or correct scientific facts, or correct historical facts. Rather, I think it will be the resonance of their hearts to a set of moral truths that ring true to them and to which their hearts are drawn by their own free choice. I think this is one of the main characteristics to which inspired texts will point.


True_Faith13, Good luck in your search for true principles in this life and I hope this journey is wonderful for you, no matter where it takes you.

Clear
φιδρσετζω

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Hi True_Faith13

Restoration as a repair
The fact that you understand the basic concept that bringing back ancient religious concepts into modern consciousness is a restoration is important. The concept of restoration in this case, not only means a transfer of principles from antiquity back to modern consciousness, but it also involves a repair; an organizing; an arranging of these principles into their earlier relationship and earlier context.

Religious scholars of early texts continue to discover and move toward many of the earliest Judeo-Christian doctrines that Joseph Smith restored (e.g. pre-existence). One difference is that Smith brought them back in an organized and mature form while the historical discovery is often hap-hazard and it takes time for their recognition and their organization into a coherent religious model as advanced as Joseph Smiths.

Patterns found in restorations of ancient principles - an example from the current chapter you are reading
For example, there are great cosmic themes that occur in ancient Judeo-Christian literature that repeat themselves in various ways inside authentic revelatory patterns. The chapter of the Book of Mormon you are currently in (1 Nephi chapter 8) describes one of these repeating patterns regarding the sifting of mankind into four groups. If you pay more attention to anti-mormon distractions than you do to the Book of Mormon, you may miss these patterns.

In the bible it is called “The Sower and the Seed”. In the Book of Mormon it is called “The tree of Life”, in Hermas (in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus New Testament) is it "the Stones of the Tower". In the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is "the four trees". (The point is, that it is an ancient pattern that repeats itself in various texts and various forms.

A) The version Jesus tells in Matthew 13, involves 4 seeds that fall into different types of environments :
1) the way side,
2) the stony places,
3) seeds among thorns, and finally
4) the “good ground”).
Jesus explains the four Groups.
a) The first group doesn’t even understand the gospel or its significance.
b) The second group hears and starts in the word, but abandons it with tribulation.
c) The third group also receives it but abandons it in favor of worldly riches.
d) The fourth group consists of those who receive and “bear fruit”.


B) The version in the Book of Mormon (starting in chapter 8 where you are) describes the same 4 groups.
1) Those who are feeling "towards that great and spacious building" (their goal)
2) Those in the path but are lost in the mist of darkness. (They start correct but then abandon it)
3) Those on the path who partake of the tree and then become ashamed. (They partake but abandon the tree due to tribulation and shame)
4) Those who partake of the tree and remain.
Nephi explained the four groups
a) Those who seek the pride of the world (the great and spacious building ) of 1 Nephi 8:31-2;
b) The second group are those who start in the path towards the tree of life but become lost in the Mists (the temptations of the devil) 1 Neph 8:21-23.
c) The Third group relieve of the fruit of the tree but then abandon it as they become ashamed) 1 Nephi 8:24-28.
d) The fourth group receive of the Fruit of the tree and “are saved” 1 Nephi 8:3.

C) In the 4th Century New Testament Codex Sinaiticus, Hermas describes the building of a tower (the church) from various types of Stones found in the world.
a) The first group of stones are not even considered for use as they are “broken in pieces” and unfit.
b) The second group are those who are thrown far from the tower and rolling off the road “trudging through wastelands”.
c) The third group are those “that fall near the waters”, but are “not able to roll into it”.
d) The Fourth group are the stones that are fit for use and are brought and used in the building of the church.

You can see the pattern. A similar pattern appears in the 4Q dead sea scrolls, but it is called “The four trees”.

If you allow yourself to become distracted and attempt to pay attention to a hundred other things besides concentrating on the data you are reading, you will likely miss important patterns that would have been more obvious had you been paying attention. If the parable of the sower; the vision of the tree of life; the parable of the building of the tower, etc are correct; you (and the rest of us) are also part of the four groups and may choose which one to belong to. We all may choose what sort of data to pay attention to and concentrate on or whether to be distracted and overwhelmed by a hundred questions instead of figuring out which single question is the most important and how to answer that one first.

Principles which harmonize with your own spirit
IF the ancient Judeo-Christian concept that God is using mortality as a school, used to give the spirits of mankind a moral education as part of preparing them to experience and understand and master moral and social principles that will prepare them to learn to live in a social heaven in joy and harmony forever, then there will be some principle to attract and gather those who are willing and wanting to learn those principles.

IF there is a single beckoning religious principle that God would use as a clarion call, a marker, a symbol around which individuals from around the world will gather toward, it will probably not be the principle of correct archaeological facts, or correct scientific facts, or correct historical facts. Rather, I think it will be the resonance of their hearts to a set of moral truths that ring true to them and to which their hearts are drawn by their own free choice. I think this is one of the main characteristics to which inspired texts will point.


True_Faith13, Good luck in your search for true principles in this life and I hope this journey is wonderful for you, no matter where it takes you.

Clear
φιδρσετζω

Thankyou Clear! Katz mentioned that you were an adult convert? Would you mind telling me your background and how you came to join the church?

At the moment, there is one thing in the Temple that is making me a little unsure!

 

[Katzpur]

At the moment, there is one thing in the Temple that is making me a little unsure!

Huh?

 

[Clear]

1) Truth_Faith13 said : ““Thank you Clear! Katz mentioned that you were an adult convert? Would you mind telling me your background and how you came to join the church?"

There is nothing unusual about me. I am not a scholar, but I have known a few scholars. I was introduced to LDS / restorational theology in college by a great scholar. She was a Lutheran whose life was extraordinary. She was intelligent, and honest, and kind, and all of us who knew her at all were impressed with what she was. She was simply the best of all of us.

I had several religious conversations with her and she mentioned she was investigating the “mormons” (i.e. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) though I had no interest in LDS theology. (I assumed “Mormons” were like the Amish [horse and carriage, suits and hats, etc] and I thought the Book of Mormon was Brigham Youngs’ diary of coming out west…)

One day I saw her in a building on campus and even from her appearance I could tell something had happened to her. She took me aside and described an experience she had. She explained she had been investigating LDS theology for a year or so and had become convinced that it was correct. However, she had made a promise to God that she would join the church IF he would honor the final promise of the Book of Mormon which reads :

“I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. Moroni 10:4-6

She explained that she did considered the elements of the promise and felt that she had met the criteria. She had remembered and considered the mercies of God. She had, over time reached a sincerity of heart (initially it was difficult to admit to herself that another theology could be more correct than her present belief). She had, over time, developed real intent (rather than mere curiosity). She had faith in Christ but had not had any manifestation from God concerning the Theology within the book.

She then related her experience that confirmed, to her, the truth of the base claim of restoration. She had been alone in that room one evening and was praying in front of a large glass window. She related a waking vision she had which was followed by a confirmation of the spirit that gospel principles were restored. She then informed me that she was going to be baptized into the LDS faith and she showed me the promise of the Book of Mormon.

In the normal scheme of things, I would have simply attributed this claim to a hallucination or drugs or some other phenomenon. However, this person was simply so impressive that I had a a degree of trust that what she claimed had happened was an authentic occurrence. It gave me a degree of hope that restorative theology could be true and that, if she was correct about the promise in the book of Mormon, there was a way to have confirmation in the form of revelation. I thought that if she could do this, perhaps I could as well. I could also read the book of Mormon, and honestly consider the mercies of God. I could set aside my own biases and be sincere in my own search. I also thought I could set aside my traditions and I could develop real intent, and I felt that I could make the commitment, that if God would confirm the truth to me, I could promise to accept new ideas and new truths.

That summer, I drove a truck for my dad’s business from Arizona, to Texas, and then back in a loop to make money for school. In the evenings, I would contact the missionaries in the towns I drove through, would take the missionary discussions, I read the book of Mormon during the daytime. When I drove cross country I had hours to consider the principles I was reading. Like the scholar who introduced me, I started having more revelatory experiences, some small insights, some larger and more impressive and insightful. Over time, revelatory experiences add up and I paid attention to them. They become commonplace to a certain extent.

Though I have had many, many great, spiritual experiences, it is the accumulation of various spiritual experiences that seem, in my estimation, to add up and coalesce into what we call “a testimony” rather than the single, great vision. In this way, the life and all accumulated experiences add up to what we are and form our belief in and our commitment to God.



2) Truth_Faith13 said : “At the moment, there is one thing in the Temple that is making me a little unsure!”

The questions God tends to answer are ones that come from our own hearts and minds
Whatever the question is and whatever answer you are given, it will not help you to engage in authentic spiritual education until you are willing to ask the real questions that come from your own heart.

For example, you mentioned in your first post that you did research “from critics” and you said “I understand that some things are taken out of context, misunderstood, etc.”.

I believe that you will have to figure out what questions come from your own heart rather than simply offer a list of questions from anti-mormons that you describe as “taken out of context” and questions that involve “misunderstandings” of LDS theology.

If you can find the insight to look inside at your motive to do this rather than read the Book of Mormon and develop your own questions from your own heart and mind, then you will be asking the right questions. For me, learning to ask the questions that arose in my own heart, rather than offering a list from anti-mormons was part of becoming “sincere” and part of my gaining “real intent” that was required and part of the spiritual promise of the Book of Mormon.

I believe that whether one is studying Catholic, or Protestant, or LDS or any other theology; one should generate their own questions that come from their own hearts, rather than tick off a list of questions that others have generated, especially questions that come from enemies of the organizations we are trying to study.

When we finally begin to ask the questions that come from the inmost sincere wonderings of our own hearts, I believe God will start to respond to all of us. I don’t think he responds to facades or pretences of inquiry, as often as he does to deep and honest questions of our own hearts.

3) What questions are coming from your own heart and mind?
Did you understand the principle of authentic patterns in ancient theology and their relationship to what you are now reading in the Book of Mormon? If you understood the principle, do you think it has any significance? If you think it has significance, then what significance does it have? Do you have any questions about what you are reading?

In any case and whatever decisions you make in this life Truth_Faith13, I honestly hope your spiritual journey brings you to a place of joy and enlightenment.


Clear
φιφιακνεω

 

[Truth_Faith13]

1) Truth_Faith13 said : ““Thank you Clear! Katz mentioned that you were an adult convert? Would you mind telling me your background and how you came to join the church?"

There is nothing unusual about me. I am not a scholar, but I have known a few scholars. I was introduced to LDS / restorational theology in college by a great scholar. She was a Lutheran whose life was extraordinary as well. She was honest and kind and all of us who knew her at all were impressed with what she was. She was simply the best of all of us.

I had several religious conversations with her and she mentioned she was investigating the “mormons” (i.e. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) though I had no interest in LDS theology. (I assumed “Mormons” were like the Amish (horse and carriage, suits and hats, etc. and I thought the Book of Mormon was Brigham Youngs’ diary of coming out west…)

One day I saw her in a building on campus and even from her appearance I could tell something had happened to her. She took me aside and described an experience she had. She explained she had been investigating the Church for a year or so and had become convinced that it was correct. However, she had made a promise to God that she would join the church IF he would honor the final promise of the Book of Mormon which reads :

“I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. Moroni 10:4-6

She explained that she did considered the elements of the promise and felt that she had met the criteria. She had remembered and considered the mercies of God. She had, over time reached a sincerity of heart (initially it was difficult to admit to herself that another theology could be more correct). She had, over time, developed real intent (rather than mere curiosity). She had faith in Christ but had not had any manifestation from God concerning the Theology within the book.

She then related her experience that confirmed, to her, the truth of the base claim of restoration. She had been alone that room one evening and was praying in front of a large glass window. She related a waking vision she had which was followed by a confirmation of the spirit that gospel principles were restored. She then informed me that she was going to be baptized into the LDS faith and she showed me the promise of the Book of Mormon.

In the normal scheme of things, I would have simply attributed this claim to a hallucination or drugs or some other phenomenon. However, this person was simply so impressive that I had a great deal of trust that what she claimed had happened, was an authentic occurrence. It gave me a degree of hope that restorative theology could be true and that, if she was correct about the promise in the book of Mormon, there was a way to have confirmation in the form of revelation. I thought that if she could do this, perhaps I could as well. I could also read the book of Mormon, and honestly consider the mercies of God. I could set aside my own biases and be sincere in my own search. I also thought I could set aside my biases and traditions and develop real intent, that I could make the promise that if God would confirm the truth to me, I could promise to accept new ideas and truth.

That summer, I drove a truck for my dad’s business from Arizona, to Texas, and then back in a loop to make money for school. In the evenings, I would contact the missionaries in the towns I drove through, would take the missionary discussions, I read the book of Mormon during the daytime when I drove and I had hours to consider the principles I was reading. Like the scholar who introduced me, I started having more revelatory experiences, some small insights, some larger and more impressive and insightful. Over time, revelatory experiences add up and I paid attention to them. They become commonplace to a certain extent.

Though I have had many, many great, spiritual experiences, it is the accumulation of various spiritual experiences that seem, in my estimation, to add up and coalesce into what we call “a testimony” rather than the single, great vision. In this way, the life and all accumulated experiences add up to what we are and form our belief in and our commitment to God.



2) Truth_Faith13 said : “At the moment, there is one thing in the Temple that is making me a little unsure!”

The questions God tends to answer are ones that come from our own hearts and minds
Whatever the question is and whatever answer you are given, it will not help you to engage in authentic spiritual education until you are willing to ask the real questions that come from your own heart.

For example, you mentioned in your first post that you did research “from critics” and you said “I understand that some things are taken out of context, misunderstood, etc.”.

I believe that you will have to figure out what questions come from your own heart rather than simply offer a list of questions from anti-mormons that you describe as “taken out of context” and questions that involve “misunderstandings” of LDS theology.

If you can find the insight to look inside at your motive to do this rather than read the Book of Mormon and develop your own questions from your own heart and mind, then you will be asking the right questions. For me, learning to ask the questions that arose in my own heart, rather than offering a list from anti-mormons was part of becoming “sincere” and part of my gaining “real intent” that was required and part of the spiritual promise of the Book of Mormon.

I believe that whether one is studying Catholic, or Protestant, or LDS or any other theology; one should generate their own questions that come in their own hearts, rather than tick off a list of questions that others have generated, especially questions that come from enemies of the organizations we are trying to study.

When we finally begin to ask the questions that come from the inmost sincere wonderings of our own hearts, I believe God will start to respond to all of us. I don’t think he responds to facades or pretences of inquiry, as often as he does to deep and honest questions of our own hearts.

3) What questions are coming from your own heart and mind?
Did you understand the principle of authentic patterns in ancient theology and their relationship to what you are now reading in the Book of Mormon? If you understood the principle, do you think it has any significance? If you think it has significance, then what significance does it have. Do you have any questions about what you are reading?

In any case and whatever decisions you make in this life Truth_Faith13, I honestly hope your spiritual journey brings you to a play of joy and enlightenment.


Clear
φιφιακνεω

Thank-you so much Clear for your posts! You do make a lot of sense and they are very helpful

The question surrounding the Temple is my own, the knowledge of the ordinance comes from ex LDS/critics as I never went through the Temple but it involves something I think only God should know.

The other question that has come to mind is I am struggling to see why God would command Nephi to kill Laban?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Huh?

It's just one of the ordinances means something that I think only God should know.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

OK so I have been thinking about what Clear said and what questions are on my own heart and in truth I think there are only two important ones that I need to consider:-

1) Was there an apostasy? (I think Katz and I have spoken about this before)
2) Can the Church (assuming true) declare someone as being guaranteed to attain the highest celestial kingdom?

 

[Katzpur]

OK so I have been thinking about what Clear said and what questions are on my own heart and in truth I think there are only two important ones that I need to consider:-

I think Clear gave you some very good advice. I'm glad you decided to take it. Briefly...

1) Was there an apostasy? (I think Katz and I have spoken about this before)

I think this is the single most important question you can ask yourself. If no apostasy took place, then Roman Catholicism's claims to being "the original Church" is potentially legitimate. No other church that I'm aware of (with the possible exception of Eastern Orthodoxy) even makes that claim. It goes without saying that if an apostasy never took place, a restoration was completely unnecessary. Even if an apostasy did take place, that's not absolute proof that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the reestablishment of "the original Church." All it is proof of is that Catholicism's claims cannot be substantiated. We can safely eliminate all of Protestantism as being "the original Church" since it doesn't even claim to have the authority Jesus came His original apostles.

I think your initial focus ought to be on determining, in your own mind, whether you believe an apostasy took place or not. Once you have done that, you can move on to the second step, which would be becoming a Catholic or looking for a restoration of "the original Church." From my perspective, there is absolutely no doubt that an apostasy took place.

2) Can the Church (assuming true) declare someone as being guaranteed to attain the highest celestial kingdom?

Ah! The light just came on. I think I understand what your issue about the temple is. My answer to your question is "no." The most the Church can do is to make sure you understand the promises God has made to His children, and encourage you to work to be faithful to what He has said is necessary for exaltation. The Church can say, you must do (1) this and (2) this and (3) this and (4) this in order to qualify for exaltation, but the Church cannot and does not claim to have the authority to pass judgment as to anybody's eternal destiny.

As my unbelievably incredible bishop said a few months ago in Fast and Testimony Meeting, "Your salvation is between you and the Lord. Period. It's not between you and your bishop, between you and your stake president or you and the Prophet. It's between you and the Lord." That statement has been a huge source of peace to me.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

Regarding the principle that all mankind tends to apostatize

I once saw an Opening post ask regarding the Jew’s motives in “turn[ing] away” from the gospel. I felt that this discussion had far reaching implications since the same mechanisms that caused the Jews to “turn away” from truth may then apply to ALL individuals who “turn away” from principles God reveals for mankind to follow. Another Christian poster immediately offered the insightful question : “Do you really think we [Christians] do any better?”

Honest discussions regarding this principle of apostasy as it applies to all of us individually (the LDS as individuals as well) IS an appropriate and profound subject if Christianities are to ever gain insight into why Christians also “turn away” from truth, since, only a small portion of the many conflicting Christian theories on a specific doctrine CAN be correct and the rest must represent error.

Christianities continue to innovate and develop new and different theological theories and move away (or “turn away”) from the more ancient christian traditions. It is as though Christianity has not avoided making the same mistakes as the Jews (in terms of abandoning and innovating away from early, original, revealed religion.)

Christians rarely flirt with this admission (which is so obvious to other religions as they correctly criticize Christians for having so many conflicting theories), yet occasionally we’ll have the tacit admission that Christians are “not above guessing at those traditions, adding to them, misunderstanding them, or even altering them.” As one poster described our shared tendency to apostatize.

Such words remind me of Pseudo-Hecateus when he says “We throngs of men go astray in our hearts when, to gain solace from misery, we set up as statues of gods figures worked from wood, or images of copper, gold or ivory. We imagine we are religious when we enjoin in their honor sacrifices and evil festivals. (#2 Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 5.113)

This principle that man innovates and then adopts changed religion has ALWAYS been true whether speaking of Jews or Christians. Prophets reveal authentic religion. Men then go astray. Other prophets attempt to restore authentic religion to mankind, which correction men then apostatize from, which other prophets attempt to restore, ad nauseum.

Perhaps this is one of the great lessons that God seems to be trying to teach mankind from the beginning and Christians seem to be no more immune to this weakness than were the Jews. ALL mankind tend to apostatize to some extent. We innovate, we imagine, we theorize. And as we do, we get certain things wrong. And we must then rely on God to help us re-orient our direction in either small or important ways. A survey of the early Judao-Christian texts reveals this pattern as clearly as the later sacred texts do.


APOSTASY AMONG THE JEWS
For example, Moses understood this tendency for constant innovation and apostasy when he said “...for what I command them will not be to their liking, .... I declare to you that they will abandon me and choose to follow the idols of the gentiles and their abominations and their filthy deeds, and they will worship the false gods, which will become a trap and snare, and they will violate every sacred assembly and covenant Sabbath the very ones I am commanding them today to observe. (THE WORDS OF MOSES 1Q22 Col. 1:6-9)

The texts described that “...the boundary-shifters appeared and led Israel astray and the land was devastated, for they had spoken rebellion against the commandments of God through Moses and also through the anointed of the spirit; and they prophesied falsehood to turn Israel from following God “. (The Damascus Document 4Q)

“all the boundary shifters and all of it will be done in the age of evil...and they did not obey the voice of Moses ...they went about spreading lies about His laws and from God’s covenant they strayed... “ (THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT – Geniza A+B 4Q266)

“In the time of destruction of the land the boundary-shifters appeared and led Israel astray…for they had spoken rebellion against the commandments of God…“ (The Damascus Document 4Q)

Indeed the manner of corruption of early authentic religion was NOT through refusal of the Pagans to accept authentic religion, but rather it was a contamination of authentic prophetic religion by counterfeit innovations; a warping of religion, not by the irreligious, but by the religious themselves. The boundaries of authentic religion have always tended to “shift”.

For example, When Levi prophesies to his son’s that Israel will someday lose the rights associated with authentic religion, he reaffirms that it was partly because of contamination of authentic religion with counterfeit commandments and having pride in their claim to authority :

“You will bring down a curse on our nation, because you want to destroy the light of the Law which was granted to you for the enlightenment of every man, teaching commandments which are opposed to God’s just ordinances. .... You will be inflated with pride over your priesthood, exalting yourselves not merely by human standards but contrary to the commands of God”. (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs- Levi 14:1-8)

It is clear that it was not merely commandments and doctrines that were corrupted, but the authentic ordinances were corrupted as well.

‘And I shall send to them witnesses so that I might witness to them, but they will not hear. And they will even kill the witnesses. And they will persecute those who search out the Law, and they will neglect everything and begin to do evil in my sight. And I shall hide my face from them, and I shall give them over to the power of the nations to be captive, and for plunder, and to be devoured. And I shall remove them from the midst of the land, and I shall scatter them among the nations. And they will forget all of my laws and all of my commandments and all of my judgments, and they will err concerning new moons, Sabbaths, festivals, jubilees, and ordinances.” Jubilees (the book of division) 1:12-14;

New testament Barnabas reminds the christians of this same warning and it’s fulfillment among the Jews : “Now concerning the water, it is written with reference to Israel that they would never accept the baptism that brings forgiveness of sins, but would create a substitute for themselves.” (Barnabas 11:1)

Thus the book of Jubilees reminds us : “And this testimony will be heard as a testimony against them, for they will forget all of my commandments, everything which I shall command them, and they will walk after the gentiles and after their defilement and shame. And they will serve their gods, …. because they have forsaken my ordinances and my commandments and the feasts of my covenant and my Sabbaths and my sacred place, which I sanctified for myself among them.“ (Jubilees (the book of division) 1:9-10)



THE CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE TO RETAIN AUTHENTIC RELIGION WAS THE LOSS OF THE MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF AUTHENTIC RELIGION AMONG THE JEWS

28 “Hear these words, O Israel. … you and your fathers committed iniquity and did not keep the ways which the Most High commanded you. 32 And because he is a righteous judge, in due time he took from you what he had given.“ Fourth Book of Ezra 14:28-32;

The Prophet Ezra is not merely referring to the land of Israel, but to the very loss of the Prophetic gift of Revelation which kept authentic religion on course. Prophetic revelation was so central to authentic religion that Justin martyr, reminds the Jew Trypho that prophetic religion was the key witnesses to the authenticity of the early Christian religion and it’s loss among the Jews and the appearance of Revelation and prophets among the Christians was a sign of Gods transfer of favor to the Christians.

Justin tells the Jew Trypo : “One may see among us [Christians] men and women who have received the gift of the Spirit of God...there were no longer to be prophets in your [Jewish] race as in the past...For after him [Jesus] absolutely no prophet has come among you... We have still among us, even until now, prophetic gifts, which should make you understand that which your race formerly possessed has been transferred to us. “ (Dialogue with Trypho, lxxxiii)

However, once the Christians received the gift of authentic prophetic religion, though they disdained the Jews for apostasy from the earliest religion, the Christians seemed no better at retaining authentic religion than the Jews were. The warnings given to the Jews anciently are no different in essentials than the warnings repeated to the Christians should Christianity turns too far from the path or should they not accept corrections back to correct principles.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS