DiscussMormonism.com

David Bokovoy just pulled another one of his stunts that, for obvious reasons, have apologists excited over what they admittedly don’t understand. I guess in their state of confusion they find a sense of comfort knowing that someone studying to be a Bible scholar claims to understand the issues and feels confident enough to keep reasserting that the "evidence"supports Smith's prophethood.

Bokovoy essentially informed the audience that the Book of Abraham mentions some stuff that is already found in the Bible; particularly the divine council

Parallelomania here we come.

Of course, this comes as an obvious no-brainer to most critics, but the amateurs at MAD who are still riding with their apologetic training wheels, are eating it up as if this is some kind of stroke of genius on his part. How did David manage to make this lemon look like a brand new Porsche? Simple. He does it with smoke and mirrors, by spending over 1200 words to make a simple point seem out of this world. The point itself is obvious, yet by obfuscating its simplicity with a bunch of irrelevant citations from Bible scholars who affirm the importance of the divine council in the Bible, people who don’t have the mental stamina to keep up with his mundane diatribes, simply abandon critical thought and recoil into gratuitous ovation.

This is what Bokovoy doesn’t do. He doesn’t demonstrate how these parallels couldn’t have come from non-revelatory means. Means that seem more probable and palpable – at least to those who aren’t operating from a testimony based perspective.

He throws in a rhetorical device to make readers think that a belief in a divine council was completely anachronistic in the early 19th century. He reinforces this by saying that Smith “shocked” Christians with this theology. He then cites modern scholars who refer to the divine council as a common theme in the Bible, as if that were some amazing discovery of the 21st century and as if no 19th century Bible scholar would have even acknowledged its existence. Revelation, it must be!

Good grief, the Bible refers to the divine council on numerous occasions. Smith was obviously familiar with all of these relevant verses since he frequently employed them to make his point. So why is this evidence that the Book of Abraham was produced by divine revelatory means?

It should also be noted that Smith was probably familiar with Kabbalism which readily accepted the concept of the divine council; Smith cited some Kabbalistic works in a Times and Seasons issue in 1843.

But no. None of this matters for those desperate to find something, anything that could be described as a “parallel.” These amount to superficial parallels and its collection is just an attempt to stack the deck - with flimsy cards.

His other thread attacked Ritner.

Hey, if you can't beat his arguments, then whine about bias. Isn't that what all scholars do? Of course LDS apologists do not recognize any critic to be objective, so this complaint is really ridiculous. And somehow I think the scholars in charge of the JNES publication are more in tuned with what passes for true scholarship, than David is. I mean if snarkiness and bias is what precludes true scholarship, then FARMS is doomed as an organization trying to appear scholarly.

Kevin, THANK YOU for keeping us updated like this! Due to my moderatorial duties on this board, I can't check in on MA&D nearly as often as I'd like. If it weren't for folks like you, I'd have a much harder time keeping up with the latest in LDS apologetics. In other words, your efforts here are HIGHLY appreciated!

You also wrote:

The point itself is obvious, yet by obfuscating its simplicity with a bunch of irrelevant citations from Bible scholars who affirm the importance of the divine council in the Bible, people who don’t have the mental stamina to keep up with his mundane diatribes, simply abandon critical thought and recoil into gratuitous ovation.

LOL! Quote of the month!

I just posted the following rebuttal of David's post:

David,

I see no reason to believe that the stars literally represent divine beings. They have too many characterstics that only actual celestial bodies would have: length of days, revolutions, speed, etc. Rather, the Book of Abraham gives a literal account of the organization of the cosmos, which mirrors the priesthood organization of the church. The heavens are said to reveal, among other things, the grand key-words of the priesthood. This is not unexpected, since Joseph Smith had already evidenced an awareness of the connections between the heavens and the priesthood, as well as an interest in other inhabited spheres. For example, in 1840 he had joined the Freemasons (whose interest in key-words is well known):

"Mormon use of Masonic symbols has also been publicly acknowledged. Mormons were hardly discreet in their depictions of symbols long associated with Freemasonry...including the square, the compass, the sun, moon, and stars, the beehive, the all-seeing eye, ritualistic hand grips, two interlaced triangles forming a six-pointed star...and a number of other Masonic symbols on endowment houses, temples, cooperatives, grave markers, tabernacles, church meetinghouses, newspaper mastheads, hotels, residences, money, logos, and seals." ("Similarity of Priesthood in Masonry": The Relationship between Freemasonry and Mormonism, by Michael W. Homer, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol.27, no.3, Fall 1994, p.73, emphasis added) (c.f. a picture of the Nauvoo temple sunstone, here)

There is also no question that Joseph was aware of 1 Corinthians 15:41:

"There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory."

In fact, he had made this the basis for his three degrees of glory, revealed in D&C 76. This revelation came 3 years prior to 1835, when the Book of Abraham's system of astronomy was first "unfolded." Even prior to that, Joseph Smith had offered us the Book of Moses:

"And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten... But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them."

The likelihood of a plurality of inhabited worlds was a hot topic in Joseph's day. It is oft-noted that Thomas **** had published an influential book on the subject that might have influenced Joseph Smith, but the idea would have been part and parcel of public discourse, and I don't think there's any need to posit that Joseph Smith had personally read ****. For more on this topic, I recommend Vogel and Metcalfe's essay "Joseph's Scriptural Cosmology" in Word of God.

Prior to his translation of the last several chapters of the Book of Abraham with their plurality of gods Joseph Smith had also spoken of "A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest." He continues,

"All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be revealed and set forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ. And also, if there be bounds set to the heavens or to the seas, or to the dry land, or to the sun, moon, or stars—All the times of their revolutions, all the appointed days, months, and years, and all the days of their days, months, and years, and all their glories, laws, and set times, shall be revealed in the days of the dispensation of the fulness of times—According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was, that should be reserved unto the finishing and the end thereof, when every man shall enter into his eternal presence and into his immortal rest." (D&C 121:28-32)

This suggests to me that even prior to his translation of the relevant portion of the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith was contemplating the possibility that there are many gods, and also thinking about this in connection to a plurality of worlds. Perhaps the fact that God is the "God of all other gods" aided Joseph Smith in coming to this realization. More significantly, however, I think it was tied to his ongoing study (and revision) of the Genesis creation narrative. Anthony Hutchinson demonstrated in a Dialogue article some years ago that the Genesis narrative went through several Joseph Smith-rescensions, including the Book of Moses version and the Book of Abraham version. Particularly since he started studying Hebrew, Joseph was utterly aware that Genesis 1 used the title elohim of the being(s) who created the world, and that this term means "gods" (when he defended the doctrine in his "plurality of gods" sermon, he appealed to this very fact). He undoubtedly noticed in this connection that God says "let us go down." And finally, Joseph noticed the many places in the Bible where Yahweh is clearly sitting in a council of unspecified heavenly beings. He put two and two together, and came up with a cosmology that is not identical to any ancient cosmology, but that rightly has some parallels in ancient cosmologies. Given Joseph Smith's interest in biblical and occult arcana, and especially in resolving problems in the Genesis creation narratives, I am not surprised that he fixated on this particular topic.

The bottom line is that there is nothing about the cosmology->priesthood or cosmology->multiple glories correspondences in the Book of Abraham that don't find a comfortable home in the overall trajectory of Joseph Smith's theological speculations. There is also nothing he couldn't have easily deduced from 19th century sources (like Genesis 1) that he would have been intimately familiar with. I see no reason to deduce from any of this that the Book of Abraham is an authentic ancient document.

-CK

David responds:

Hello CK,

I see no reason to believe that the stars literally represent divine beings. They have too many characteristics that only actual celestial bodies would have: length of days, revolutions, speed, etc.

It seems that in your reading you may have missed Abraham 3:16-19 where Abraham specifically draws a comparison between the star Kolob and Jesus Christ. Abraham explains that just as one star is greater than another, so there is another spirit “more intelligent than the other,” but the Lord God is “more intelligent than they all.” As a star, Kolob appears “after the manner of the Lord.” Hence, much like the Hebrew Bible, the account clearly uses stars as a symbol for divine beings.

As several LDS commentators have noted, Kolob itself is like Christ in as much as the star is “the greatest of all the Kokaubeam” and is “nearest unto the throne of God" (vv. 2-3, 16); Kolob holds the “key of power” (facsimile 2; fig. 2); there exist many “great ones” near Kolob that also govern under it (vv. 2-3); like Christ, Kolob is the source of light for all other stars and planets (fac. 2; fig. 5).

In presenting stars as a symbol for the gods of the council, The Book of Abraham reflects Lehi’s vision in which the Book of Mormon prophet saw Christ “descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above the sun at noon-day; and he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament” (1 Nephi 1:9-10).

Given this information, together with the suggestions I provided in the opening post, I see every reason to believe that LDS scripture, including the Book of Abraham uses stars to represent celestial beings.

Rather, the Book of Abraham gives a literal account of the organization of the cosmos, which mirrors the priesthood organization of the church. The heavens are said to reveal, among other things, the grand key-words of the priesthood.

Why do you feel that the Book of Abraham must feature a singular meaning?

"Mormon use of Masonic symbols has also been publicly acknowledged…

“There is also no question that Joseph was aware of 1 Corinthians 15:41…

“In fact, he had made this the basis for his three degrees of glory, revealed in D&C 76…

“The likelihood of a plurality of inhabited worlds was a hot topic in Joseph's day…

“This suggests to me that even prior to his translation of the relevant portion of the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith was contemplating the possibility that there are many gods, and also thinking about this in connection to a plurality of worlds. Perhaps the fact that God is the "God of all other gods" aided Joseph Smith in coming to this realization. More significantly, however, I think it was tied to his ongoing study (and revision) of the Genesis creation narrative. Anthony Hutchinson demonstrated in a Dialogue article some years ago that the Genesis narrative went through several Joseph Smith-rescensions, including the Book of Moses version and the Book of Abraham version. Particularly since he started studying Hebrew, Joseph was utterly aware that Genesis 1 used the title elohim of the being(s) who created the world, and that this term means "gods" (when he defended the doctrine in his "plurality of gods" sermon, he appealed to this very fact). He undoubtedly noticed in this connection that God says "let us go down." And finally, Joseph noticed the many places in the Bible where Yahweh is clearly sitting in a council of unspecified heavenly beings. He put two and two together, and came up with a cosmology that is not identical to any ancient cosmology, but that rightly has some parallels in ancient cosmologies. Given Joseph Smith's interest in biblical and occult arcana, and especially in resolving problems in the Genesis creation narratives, I am not surprised that he fixated on this particular topic.”

“The bottom line is that there is nothing about the cosmology->priesthood or cosmology->multiple glories correspondences in the Book of Abraham that don't find a comfortable home in the overall trajectory of Joseph Smith's theological speculations. There is also nothing he couldn't have easily deduced from 19th century sources (like Genesis 1) that he would have been intimately familiar with.”

You and I clearly have a vastly different view on the nature of revelation. I do not deny that Joseph Smith’s study of Hebrew seems to have had an impact upon his revelations.

Neither did he, for that matter.

“Attended the school and read and translated with my class as usual, and my soul delights in reading the word of the Lord in the original, and I am determined to pursue the study of languages until I shall become master of them, if I am permitted to live long enough, at any rate so long as I do live I am determined to make this my object, and with the blessing of God I shall succeed to my satisfaction” Joseph Smith, Personal Writings, 191.

By studying Hebrew, for example, as part of the revelatory process, Joseph acted in strict harmony with God’s instruction regarding the revelatory act: “But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask”? (D&C 9:8 ).

Joseph was clearly well-versed in this process.

Indeed, many of the great doctrinal truths given through Joseph Smith came as a direct result of Joseph studying Hebrew out in his own mind. Through such study, the Lord “opened [his] mind in a marvelous manner”:

“This day we commenced reading in our Hebrew Bible with much success. It seems as if the Lord opens our minds in a marvelous manner, to understand His word in the original language; and my prayer is that God will speedily endow us with a knowledge of all languages and tongues, that His servants may go forth for the last time the better prepared to bind up the law and seal up the testimony” Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 2:376-377.

The same holds true for Joseph’s work in the Inspired Translation. D&C 132, for example (a section that you have wrongfully maligned on this board) derives from three separate questions Joseph had while studying the Bible out in his own mind.

And thank goodness Joseph had those questions through his study.

Unlike you, I happen to believe that D&C 132 is one of the most powerful revelations God has ever given to humanity.

You see, whether we’re dealing with biblical Hebrew, the King James Version of the Bible, or even a group of Egyptian papyri, the Prophet’s labor to understand these things directly led to revelation.

Speaking personally, I know of no other way in which God issues a revelation other than the pattern witnessed time and time again through the life of Joseph Smith.

I see no reason to deduce from any of this that the Book of Abraham is an authentic ancient document.

Of course the Book of Abraham is not an ancient document. When all is said and done, it’s a 19th century book of scripture produced via divine revelation given to an American Prophet of God living in Kirtland Ohio.

Fascinating, however, how well it works with Old Testament symbols and theology.

Bokovoy's last couple sentences are telling. The premise of his initial post was that similarities between the Book of Abraham and ancient Semitic ideas about the divine council are a powerful internal evidence for the inspiration of the Book of Abraham. Now we learn that he does not think the Book of Abraham is an ancient document. Why then similarities to ancient concepts should be at all significant, I am at a loss to explain. I replied,

David,

It seems that in your reading you may have missed Abraham 3:16-19 where Abraham specifically draws a comparison between the star Kolob and Jesus Christ. Abraham explains that just as one star is greater than another, so there is another spirit “more intelligent than the other,” but the Lord God is “more intelligent than they all.” As a star, Kolob appears “after the manner of the Lord.”

I meant for these statements to be included in my description: "the Book of Abraham gives a literal account of the organization of the cosmos, which mirrors the priesthood organization of the church." The fifteen fixed stars, I believe, mirror the church's priesthood leaders (the twelve and the first presidency). Christ (corresponding to Kolob) stands above them, and above him the Father. The point of the Book of Abraham description, I believe, is that God has organized the cosmos in much the same manner as he has organized the church; the cosmos are presumably meant to stand as a testimony to proper priesthood organization. I don't know that this is really all that different from your statement that "the account clearly uses stars as a symbol for divine beings." In much of the ancient world, celestial bodies were literally thought of as celestial beings; thus are the "heavenly host" spoken of as members of El's council. By contrast, the relationship in the Book of Abraham is primarily a symbolic one, one of a correspondence of organization.

Of course the Book of Abraham is not an ancient document. When all is said and done, it’s a 19th century book of scripture produced via divine revelation given to an American Prophet of God living in Kirtland Ohio.

Fascinating, however, how well it works with Old Testament symbols and theology.

You are quite the enigma, David. Let me ask you this: if you acknowledge that Joseph Smith's revelation was preceded by a working out of these issues in his own mind, and was based on a careful study of the relevant biblical texts, then how have you arrived at the conclusion that partial correspondences of the Book of Abraham to ideas expressed in these same biblical texts is a powerful internal evidence that the Book of Abraham is scripture? Let me put it another way: if we concede that prior to his revelation Joseph Smith was asking questions about the existence of plural gods, the symbolic significance of the organization of the cosmos, and the interpretation of certain biblical passages, what makes "revelation" a better explanation than "reason and imagination" for how he went about answering those questions?

I don't think you have offered any compelling internal evidence for the truth of the Book of Abraham.

-CK

Of course the Book of Abraham is not an ancient document. When all is said and done, it’s a 19th century book of scripture produced via divine revelation given to an American Prophet of God living in Kirtland Ohio.

Fascinating, however, how well it works with Old Testament symbols and theology.


Wow!! I mean WOW!! Am I behind the loop, or has this been an ongoing trend? I think this is HUGE.

Next up: Of course the Book of Mormon is not an ancient document. When all is said and done, it's a 19th century book of scripture produced via divine revelation given to an American Prophet of God living in NY.

I think this is an incredible breakthrough! How do believers react to a statement like this?

Of course the Book of Abraham is not an ancient document. When all is said and done, it’s a 19th century book of scripture produced via divine revelation given to an American Prophet of God living in Kirtland Ohio.

Fascinating, however, how well it works with Old Testament symbols and theology.

WOW! is right. I think he would eat those words now that time has passed and he could go back and think about what he wrote.

At the behest of a couple of you who PMed me, I went over to MAD and responded to this thread as “Leonidas.”

David reads this forum and he knew from the start that I was Leonidas. Apparently, David decided to wait until he had no other choice, before dropping this bomb on the forum and ensuring my forced absence. He knew it would result in me being banned and him having the last word.

Fully aware that I had been banned, everyone else decided to jump on the bandwagon and started to tout the fact that I was there again. David B decided to respond to a post I made here instead of dealing with my last post at MAD which pretty much proved the point that Joseph Smith himself denies David’s claim that he received this doctrine through divine revelation – at least, in any sense that would set him apart as a prophet.

DCP acted like he was confused because I try to participate on a forum I do not like. This I found humorous since DCP admittedly had tried to log in to RFM under various names, and he speaks of RFM as if it were the bigotry center of the universe.

And then the village idiot, Will Schryver tried to take a stab at me by dissecting my posts looking for typos; since he can never refute the content of my posts he has to complain about something else. He said he noticed a common typo of mine (dependant as opposed to dependent). It is? Out of curiosity I searched all my posts with that word and came up with nothing. I searched all three forums under all the names I have used and nothing came up. Our erstwhile “circle-jerk” expert hasn’t changed much has he?

In any event, I rarely benefit from a spell checker since mine is in Portuguese and dependant is the noun form of the adjective so it doesn’t always show up in English either.

If anyone really wants me to, and if I get around to it, I might read through David's last post and respond here.

Edit: I just noticed David's comment in another post:

Outing Kevin is kind of like playing that kid’s book “Where’s Waldo?” As hard as he tries to fit in, to hide amongst the group, the truth is he’s really crying, “Over Here!,” “look at me!,” “Please, somebody look at me!”

Cute. But the fact is I showed up there to make some points that nobody has addressed.

In any event, recent history proves that I do not have to show up there to become the center of attention. A couple of days ago Her Amum had started a personal thread inquiring about me and my arguments regarding the Book of Abraham, and Juliann humorously jumped in and claimed victimhood (only after removing her signature line which cited me on another forum!).

I thought about posting on the Bokovoy Ritner thread because it struck me as pretty much the most empty argument about anything that I've ever read. Essentially, he was complaining about Ritner's use of quotation marks around particular words. That's right, the common and accepted practice of using quotes to call something into question: 'The store's "sales" are actually merely a small reduction in the already highly marked-up prices' and so on.

From this he cries about "bias." Oh, look. I just did it too. I'm such a naughty academic!!!

Anyway, after a couple of seconds of reflection it hardly seemed worth the trouble of writing even a few sentences about it. So that's why I checked out this thread to see if anyone was getting the same laugh of disbelief out of his "argument."

I'm glad I did, or I would have missed that absolutely stunning assessment of the Book of Abraham:

Of course the Book of Abraham is not an ancient document. When all is said and done, it’s a 19th century book of scripture produced via divine revelation given to an American Prophet of God living in Kirtland Ohio.

Fascinating, however, how well it works with Old Testament symbols and theology.


How would believers react Beastie? At this point I think they swallow anything. Or maybe blind and deaf are better metaphors. I mean, one reason why I started thinking about Mormonism again, after having nothing to do with it for over 30 years, was my complete astonishment over Hinkley's claim that "we" don't teach men can become gods. When I heard that a few years ago, I thought it would cause cataclysmic controvery among the ranks. That it didn't frankly shocked me.

I thought about posting on the Bokovoy Ritner thread because it struck me as pretty much the most empty argument about anything that I've ever read.

Bokovoy provides many of these empty, but long-winded arguments. Just do a search for all of the threads he starts and you will see what I am talking about. They often involve some semi-veiled claim of discovered evidence/proof for Smith's claims, through his studies as a Hebrew scholar, and the rest is a diatribe of irrelevant citations, none of which directly or unambiguously support the point he is trying to prove. This is something only a Nibley fanatic could appreciate. You get people excited with an apologetic thesis statement and you fill up the next 10 pages with fluff that goes right over everyone's head except for a few. The reason I say this is because his threads generally generate no discussion. Few actually know what the hell he is actually saying, but almost everyone there likes the fact that he is going to be a PhD. soon, so maybe that means his thesis really is proved somewhere in that diatribe.

I think David is making a big career mistake by using his real name and making so many public apologetic declarations that are simply off the wall. I hope Bokovoy is actually a pseudonym, because this stuff can come back to bite him in the butt later in his career. He often attacks conservative scholarship, but nothing is worse that someone trying to gain credentials as a scholar for the shole purpose of trying to vindicate truth claims of a new religious movement. David hasn't even obtained his doctorate yet and he is already going off down that trail completely unhinged.