"Don't Ask, Don't Tell"--The First Law of Mormonism

[_Drifting]

Mormonism is a hidden religion:

Hidden rituals
Hidden history
Hidden financials
Hidden doctrines
Hidden religious clothing

Why does God feel the need to operate in secret?

[_consiglieri]

Seek and ye shall find; ask and it shall be given unto you. So don't seek, and don't ask!

Right you are!

The irony here is only highlighted by the fact that this very verse was in the lesson material for this week. (3 Nephi 12-15)

I think it was even referred to earlier in the lesson, if you can believe it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

How very bizarre. Everywhere the word "mysteries" appears in the scriptures it's a good thing, like a blessing or a reward for honest and sincere seekers, and something we should all be striving to discover. I've never heard the term used with such a negative connotation before.

You are absolutely correct that "mysteries" are considered a good thing in the scriptures, unless they are specifically linked with those of Satan's secret combinations.

The bishop's wife was across the chapel from me and I caught her looking at me like she had just seen something unbelievable. (You know the look.) So I made the look back at her.

She later told me she couldn't believe what she was hearing. I told her she had heard right, but suggested she read 1 Nephi 10:19.

I hear this type of malarkey so much in church I even have the cite memorized.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

I was probably in a foul mood because I think 3 Nephi 12-14 is one of the big smoking guns against the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but had to sit through people thinking it was a great upgrade to the text in Matthew.

I agree with you about the smoking gun aspect, though I think the sermon on the mount is woven into the rest of what Jesus tells the Nephites in an interesting manner.

For example, right after the sermon in which it says you need to seek to find and ask to have it answered you, Jesus talks about John 10:16 and how the nephites (and others) are the lost sheep of the fold he was talking about; but how he didn't tell the Jews this because they were stiff necked and hard hearted.

The implication to me is that the Jews were so incurious as not to even ask and therefore didn't get to find out.

This was the final point the teacher made in the Sunday school class. When she went to this, I came so close to raising my hand and asking why we are even talking about this, because this is obviously one of those "mysteries" we were just told not to delve into.

The "stiff necked and hard hearted Jews" were actually righteous by contemporary Mormon standards because they knew not to go asking about things beyond faith, repentance, baptism and Holy Ghost.

Silly Mormon Jesus.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

When I hear "stick to the basics" what is implied is that beyond that is that there are problems without good answers.

Admiral! There be whales here!

[_Sethbag]

There was some Area Authority Seventy in the audience, and he offered his opinion at several points. I was flabbergasted at his comments. Shallow, eisegetical, and at one point I think demonstrably wrong.

Isn't the bolded word redundant in the usual religious context? Who doesn't read and interpret the scriptures in a religious service from the point of view of supporting their own doctrine and ideas?

I was probably in a foul mood because I think 3 Nephi 12-14 is one of the big smoking guns against the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but had to sit through people thinking it was a great upgrade to the text in Matthew.

Perhaps this is the opposite of "not inventered here" syndrome?

[_Cicero]

I was probably in a foul mood because I think 3 Nephi 12-14 is one of the big smoking guns against the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but had to sit through people thinking it was a great upgrade to the text in Matthew.

Can you expand on that argument a bit? I don't need a lengthy, detailed summary, but I'd love just a few sentences containing the basic gist of the argument.

[_Aristotle Smith]

There was some Area Authority Seventy in the audience, and he offered his opinion at several points. I was flabbergasted at his comments. Shallow, eisegetical, and at one point I think demonstrably wrong.

Isn't the bolded word redundant in the usual religious context? Who doesn't read and interpret the scriptures in a religious service from the point of view of supporting their own doctrine and ideas?

It doesn't bother me as much, usually not at all, when an average church member (of any denomination) does this. I fully expect that people who don't think about stuff too much to simply read it in their own specific context, which is guaranteed eisegesis. However, I hold leadership to a higher standard, they should know to give a better argument or to be quiet. Since someone saw fit to make him an Area Authority Seventy, that means he gets held to the higher standard in my book.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I was probably in a foul mood because I think 3 Nephi 12-14 is one of the big smoking guns against the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but had to sit through people thinking it was a great upgrade to the text in Matthew.

Can you expand on that argument a bit? I don't need a lengthy, detailed summary, but I'd love just a few sentences containing the basic gist of the argument.

There are two basic problems with the Sermon on the Mount text in 3 Nephi.

The first problem is text-critical, which means that the words in 3 Nephi do not match the text of the oldest and best Greek Manuscripts. When the KJV was translated, scholars were just beginning to gather old Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. So the base Greek Text the KJV translators used was an amalgam of a few late Greek Texts. In the intervening 400 years scholars have discovered literally thousands of texts, many of which are much older than those used by the KJV. The text of the Sermon on the Mount has had some changes as the better manuscripts have come to light. A great test of prophetic ability would be if the Book of Mormon matched the better, older texts, rather than the texts used for the KJV. They do not, but rather track the KJV text. The most obvious problem is that the Lord's prayer in Matthew 6 does not have the final words, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen." Scholars are unanimous that this was a later addition, but 3 Nephi has this in its text. By the way, if you want an in depth article explaining these issues see New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, chapter 5.

The second problem is source critical, which is the study of the sources used by the gospel writers to craft their respective gospels. There is very good evidence that both Matthew and Luke shared a similar source for the contents of the Sermon on the Mount. However, they did not copy the source blindly, though they share the same themes. This is what accounts for the fact that Matthew's Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) is very similar to Luke's Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:17-49), but not exactly the same. They have a common source, but Matthew and Luke exercised their literary license in what they included and where they put it. The bottom line is that the Sermon on the Mount is a creation of Matthew, while the Sermon on the Plain is a creation of Luke. So the question is: Why is Jesus showing up and quoting verbatim someone else's creation? Even more problematic is that most estimates for the composition date of Matthew put the book as being authored between 70-90 A.D. So now you have to ask: Why Jesus is quoting a text that hadn't been written yet?

[_Chap]

Exactly. At the time the Book of Mormon was written in the early 19th century, most ordinary Americans took it for granted that when the Bible said that Jesus said "XYZ", he said "XYZ" pretty well in so many words. Some still do.

So the fact that the Book of Mormon has a verbatim replay of the familiar Sermon on the Mount text helped convince people it was genuinely recording the words of Jesus. No doubt it still works that way for some. But for those more aware of scholarship, it nowadays works in precisely the opposite way.