Volcanoes: Proof of Truth

[_harmony]

Harmony, you haven't read what I've published.

I never said I read what you've published. I've read your words though. Thousands of them.

[_JustMe]

Ray A

Lest I be misread here, I'm not saying we have a perfect knowledge of the past, but some very solid information about ancient Israel has come to us through scholars who specialise in this subject, from all of the available Jewish records ever kept, and even the Old Testament itself is a core source of our understanding, and we don't find it anything like the very Christocentric Book of Mormon, which much more resembles the New Testament.

James H. Charlesworth, one of the cream of the crop of those Old Testament and Pseudepigraphic scholars has noted that the Christological information about the JEWS in ancient America as recorded in the Book of Mormon cold easily have been edited in by the CHRISTIAN Mormon and Moroni editing the records from the advantage and vantage point of 400 A.D.
That actually truly and seriously makes al kinds of sense to me. What am I missing?

[_harmony]

James H. Charlesworth, one of the cream of the crop of those Old Testament and Pseudepigraphic scholars has noted that the Christological information about the JEWS in ancient America as recorded in the Book of Mormon cold easily have been edited in by the CHRISTIAN Mormon and Moroni editing the records from the advantage and vantage point of 400 A.D.
That actually truly and seriously makes al kinds of sense to me. What am I missing?

Edited. On metal plates.

It's not they could use an eraser, JM.

[_Roger Morrison]

I didn't intend to spend much time on this thread, though the topic was did seem interesting. But I have to say:

Ray, you were/are most compelling and cogent...Really!! I gathered a lot, not just about the vulcanics--if that's a word?--but from the civil approach of yourself, Beastie and JM. First rate stuff!

I also now have more tolerance towards the "by faith, believers" than before. I forget who made the point, "...if you just acknowledge "...no evidence, but my faith..." and cease arguing, I have no trouble with that..." Or words to that affect.

If we could play by those stringent, yet charitable policies... How productive, and enjoyable discussion would be! Thanks guys!

Warm regards, Roger, smarter & richer :-)

[_Ray A]

James H. Charlesworth, one of the cream of the crop of those Old Testament and Pseudepigraphic scholars has noted that the Christological information about the JEWS in ancient America as recorded in the Book of Mormon cold easily have been edited in by the CHRISTIAN Mormon and Moroni editing the records from the advantage and vantage point of 400 A.D.
That actually truly and seriously makes al kinds of sense to me. What am I missing?

I've also pointed this out many times, Kerry. I've been impressed with Charlesworth's positive views about the Book of Mormon. I would go as far as to say I think he may think it's inspired, judging by his comments in Reflections on Mormonism. My opinion is that in the quote you refer to above, Charlesworth was merely pointing out an internal consistency.

I am quite certain he doesn't believe it is history. See pages 123-129 in Reflections on Mormonism, in the section titled "Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha and the Book of Mormon: A Comparison", where he also says on page 125:

"And likewise it is evident that Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century had the opportunity to redact the traditions that he claimed to receive. (My emphasis)

And this is what I've said before, the experts on the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha have firmly placed the Book of Mormon in the same tradition.

[_JustMe]

Ray A

I would go as far as to say I think he may think it's inspired, judging by his comments in Reflections on Mormonism. My opinion is that in the quote you refer to above, Charlesworth was merely pointing out an internal consistency.

Then there is no contradiction except on what one believes. The Book of Mormon is perfectly consistent about ancient "Jews" believing Christian doctrines.

I am quite certain he doesn't believe it is history. See pages 123-129 in Reflections on Mormonism, in the section titled "Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha and the Book of Mormon: A Comparison", where he also says on page 125:

"And likewise it is evident that Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century had the opportunity to redact the traditions that he claimed to receive. (My emphasis)

Yet he never presents that evidence. Joseph never went back over anything he dictated, according to any of the witnesses. It was a one time reading. When he took breaks, he never came back to the table (or hat), and asked the scribe "Now then what was I talking about?" He simply went right on dictating. Charlesworth opines his belief. I respect that. I also disagree with it.

And this is what I've said before, the experts on the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha have firmly placed the Book of Mormon in the same tradition.

Are you aware that the experts of the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha are now realigning the definitions? They think the definitions of ALL areas, "scripture," "apocrypha," "pseudepigrapha," "canon" etc. The categories are not set in concrete, and there are serious overlaps in all genres. ALL of them. If the Book of Mormon is even near this arena this is simply screamin news man! You do know, don't you, that the definitions of "apocrypha," and "pseduepigrapha" do not mean spurious? Tell me you do realize that please.

[_beastie]

Did I miss it, or have the defenders of the faith assiduously ignored the Wonders of Nature quote?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've assiduously ignored it, and I plan to assiduously ignore quite a bit besides.

With practice, I believe that I'll be able to assiduously ignore more and more here. And it already feels very good.

[_beastie]

I've assiduously ignored it, and I plan to assiduously ignore quite a bit besides.

With practice, I believe that I'll be able to assiduously ignore more and more here. And it already feels very good.

You need absolutely no more practice in ignoring inconvenient facts. You already excel at it.

[_Ray A]

The Book of Mormon is perfectly consistent about ancient "Jews" believing Christian doctrines.

But I'm not convinced that they did believe Christian doctrines, as taught by Christ. If contrary evidence ever showed up, as plainly as it is in the Book of Mormon, I'd certainly consider it.

Yet he never presents that evidence. Joseph never went back over anything he dictated, according to any of the witnesses. It was a one time reading. When he took breaks, he never came back to the table (or hat), and asked the scribe "Now then what was I talking about?" He simply went right on dictating.

And I'm not convinced that this ability is unique to Joseph Smith. Anyone who knows of my research into the controversial phenomenon called "automatic writing" will be aware of that. No one understands it, but it's a reality. People with as little education as Joseph Smith have done exactly the same thing. Everything has to be taken in context. Mosser and Owen pointed out, quoting Harold Bloom:

"Smith's religious genius always manifested itself through what might be termed his charismatic accuracy, his sure sense of relevance that governed biblical and Mormon parallels. I can only attribute to his genius or daemon his uncanny recovery of elements in ancient Jewish theurgy that had ceased to be available to normative Judaism or to Christianity, and that had survived only in esoteric
traditions unlikely to have touched Smith directly."

But Bloom also considers the Book of Mormon to be "tendentious". The "recovery of elements" doesn't prove it's historical. As impressive as internal evidences may be, they are not necessarily rooted in history.

Are you aware that the experts of the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha are now realigning the definitions? They think the definitions of ALL areas, "scripture," "apocrypha," "pseudepigrapha," "canon" etc. The categories are not set in concrete, and there are serious overlaps in all genres. ALL of them. If the Book of Mormon is even near this arena this is simply screamin news man! You do know, don't you, that the definitions of "apocrypha," and "pseduepigrapha" do not mean spurious? Tell me you do realize that please.

Pseudepigrapha means "falsely attributed", and it refers to texts purportedly written in times they were not written, and works attributed to authors who were not the authors, or serious doubts that such is the case (and in my opinion a cloud does hang over some books of the Bible as well, which could make the Book of Mormon an expansion of pseudepigrapha itself, possible cases being deutero and trito Isaiah).

Here is one example given by Robert Price:

So, to return to the main point, the story in 3 Nephi collapses the two-fold story of the authorization of the original Twelve into a single continuous story, directly linking the choosing of the Nephite Twelve with their Pentecost of the Spirit and fire. In the Gospels and Acts, these events in the lives of the Jerusalem Apostles are separated by many chapters because in the Gospels the original Twelve are used as object lessons or straight men during the teaching period of Jesus' ministry, often in order to warn the reader about the seductions and abuses of power in the church hierarchy (compare, e.g., Mark 9:33-35; 10:35-37, 41; 1 Corinthians 1:11-12; 12:21-25). And this is inevitably the sort of argument made by those who do not currently wield power and aimed at those who do. By eliminating this material, with its frequent embarrassments to the disciples (that is, by having nothing analogous, nothing with Nephite disciples as the butt of the story), Joseph Smith gives an unambiguously positive portrait of the New Twelve. On the one hand, he has implicitly removed the Gospel's critique of power (such as Smith himself would come to wield), and on the other he has made the New World Twelve to appear superior to their Jerusalem predecessors. Mormon Christianity is thus not merely a return to or restoration of the primitive church: it is an improvement on the original, and we will presently see another sign pointing in the same direction.

This is a common trend in the Book of Mormon, it expands and makes seemless the problems associated with original texts, In other words, it redacts the originals to eliminate previous difficulties. That makes it even less historical. Alma being "buried by the hand of the Lord" and never seen again is another example of expansion on ancient texts:

19 Behold, this we know, that he was a righteous man; and the saying went abroad in the church that he was taken up by the Spirit, or buried by the hand of the Lord, even as Moses. But behold, the scriptures saith the Lord took Moses unto himself; and we suppose that he has also received Alma in the spirit, unto himself; therefore, for this cause we know nothing concerning his death and burial.

There are many others, and that's why Charlesworth and others say that it's in the "tradition of the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha". And that's why Stendhal said that his conclusion that the Book of Mormon is in that tradition, "is very clear". It would even be clear to an amateur.

I'm viewing your You Tube video on Charlesworth, and I'll be back to comment on that later.