2 Ne 2:13 last sentence

[Equality]

seems to contradict the d&c, the more unique Mormon ideas may not have been thunk up yet.

Nearly all of the D&C predates the 1830 Edition of Book of Mormon which falls in line with Trinitarian thinking and even pays special mention to the Virgin Mary who "is the mother of God" and declares "the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father" thus classifying God as "the Father and Son: and they are one God, yeah, the very Eternal Father of Heaven and of Earth."

Note the revelation states that the Son is classified as "Eternal Father" of both Heaven and Earth! Hence, Jesus was the very Eternal Father in Heaven by which the angels ever worshiped him as God. But all of this, of course, changed when Smith got his hands on the papyrus and thunk up new ideas about the God of the Christian religion.

I don't think it's accurate to say nearly all the D&C predates the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon. I think only about 15% of the D&C predates the founding of the church on April 6, 1830, and the Book of Mormon was finished before that, wasn't it? I didn't go back to check, and it's been about 20 years since I cracked open a D&C, but I think section 20 was the founding of the church and just about everything after that (i.e., sections 21 through 138) post-date 1830, don't they?

[Shulem]

I don't think it's accurate to say nearly all the D&C predates the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon. I think only about 15% of the D&C predates the founding of the church on April 6, 1830, and the Book of Mormon was finished before that, wasn't it? I didn't go back to check, and it's been about 20 years since I cracked open a D&C, but I think section 20 was the founding of the church and just about everything after that (i.e., sections 21 through 138) post-date 1830, don't they?

It's quite accurate to say that nearly all of the D&C predates the 1830 edition in which the translation was completed on June 30, 1829. Sections 2-16 predate the completion of the Book of Mormon. Those revelations pretty much involve the making of the Book of Mormon and predate the actual formation of the Church (April 6, 1830) and how it was to evolve into an organized religion. Sections 2-16 (15 sections) accounts for about 10% of the revelations but roughly 5% of the total word count of Smith's D&C revelations. Section 20 was finalized and drafted after the Book of Mormon was translated and may have used some content that dated around that time.

So, really, the vast bulk of the D&C came after the Book of Mormon was translated.

[Equality]

I don't think it's accurate to say nearly all the D&C predates the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon. I think only about 15% of the D&C predates the founding of the church on April 6, 1830, and the Book of Mormon was finished before that, wasn't it? I didn't go back to check, and it's been about 20 years since I cracked open a D&C, but I think section 20 was the founding of the church and just about everything after that (i.e., sections 21 through 138) post-date 1830, don't they?

It's quite accurate to say that nearly all of the D&C predates the 1830 edition in which the translation was completed on June 30, 1829. Sections 2-16 predate the completion of the Book of Mormon. Those revelations pretty much involve the making of the Book of Mormon and predate the actual formation of the Church (April 6, 1830) and how it was to evolve into an organized religion. Sections 2-16 (15 sections) accounts for about 10% of the revelations but roughly 5% of the total word count of Smith's D&C revelations. Section 20 was finalized and drafted after the Book of Mormon was translated and may have used some content that dated around that time.

So, really, the vast bulk of the D&C came after the Book of Mormon was translated.

I don't follow. Maybe I am missing something. "Predate" means to exist or happen at an earlier time, no? Most of the D&C revelations did not exist or happen before the Book of Mormon was published, so they don't "predate" the 1830 Book of Mormon; they "post-date" (i.e. happened after) the Book of Mormon. According to you, 10% of the revelations and 5% of the word count of the D&C predates the Book of Mormon, which means 90-95% of the revelations do not predate the Book of Mormon, which means "nearly all" of the D&C does not predate the 1830 Book of Mormon. No?

[Shulem]

It's quite accurate to say that nearly all of the D&C predates postdates the 1830 edition in which the translation was completed on June 30, 1829. Sections 2-16 predate the completion of the Book of Mormon. Those revelations pretty much involve the making of the Book of Mormon and predate the actual formation of the Church (April 6, 1830) and how it was to evolve into an organized religion. Sections 2-16 (15 sections) accounts for about 10% of the revelations but roughly 5% of the total word count of Smith's D&C revelations. Section 20 was finalized and drafted after the Book of Mormon was translated and may have used some content that dated around that time.

So, really, the vast bulk of the D&C came after the Book of Mormon was translated.

I don't follow. Maybe I am missing something. "Predate" means to exist or happen at an earlier time, no? Most of the D&C revelations did not exist or happen before the Book of Mormon was published, so they don't "predate" the 1830 Book of Mormon; they "post-date" (i.e. happened after) the Book of Mormon. According to you, 10% of the revelations and 5% of the word count of the D&C predates the Book of Mormon, which means 90-95% of the revelations do not predate the Book of Mormon, which means "nearly all" of the D&C does not predate the 1830 Book of Mormon. No?

Thanks for correcting me, I fixed my error above. I meant to stress that 95% of the word count given in D&C postdated the completion of the Book of Mormon translation. Therefore, only about 5% predated the said completion.

I also fixed the original post:

Nearly all of the D&C predates postdates the 1830 Edition of Book of Mormon

[MG 2.0]

If this section being referred to in 2 Nephi has ancient origins would we or would we not have expectations that the language is figurative and would fit ancient rhetorical theological style?

Would we expect it to be technical? What is the interpretive frame that ought to be used when looking at this section in the Book of Mormon or any other section of scripture. Literal?

It might be well to look a bit more at how ancient Near Eastern religious texts 'argue' to make a theological point.

Remember, we are looking at EVERYTHING with modern eyes.

Regards,
MG

Responses that are essentially a 'workaround' on what has been said in my post have been the result of my post. No direct confrontation with the meat of what has been said. If one comes into a discussion already convinced that the author of the modern-day canon of scripture is 'corrupt' they will not look for internal textual associations with the ancient world.

And for some, it always comes back to one particular 'pet peeve' that is the smoking gun that in their opinion throws the Restoration narrative under the rug.

Regards,
MG

[Shulem]

Responses that are essentially a 'workaround' on what has been said in my post have been the result of my post. No direct confrontation with the meat of what has been said. If one comes into a discussion already convinced that the author of the modern-day canon of scripture is 'corrupt' they will not look for internal textual associations with the ancient world.

And for some, it always comes back to one particular 'pet peeve' that is the smoking gun that in their opinion throws the Restoration narrative under the rug.

Regards,
MG

Dumb response. Not worth responding to...

Don't be trolled!

[sock puppet]

Responses that are essentially a 'workaround' on what has been said in my post have been the result of my post. No direct confrontation with the meat of what has been said. If one comes into a discussion already convinced that the author of the modern-day canon of scripture is 'corrupt' they will not look for internal textual associations with the ancient world.

And for some, it always comes back to one particular 'pet peeve' that is the smoking gun that in their opinion throws the Restoration narrative under the rug.

Regards,
MG

Dumb response. Not worth responding to...

Don't be trolled!

MG's posts are so off base they are irrelevant to any serious discussion.

[MG 2.0]

MG's posts are so off base they are irrelevant to any serious discussion.

When things go this direction it makes me think I might be doing something useful/right.

Regards,
MG

[Shulem]

MG's posts are so off base they are irrelevant to any serious discussion.

When things go this direction it makes me think I might be doing something useful/right.

Regards,
MG

You are free to think whatever you want, dummy.

[MG 2.0]

If this section being referred to in 2 Nephi has ancient origins would we or would we not have expectations that the language is figurative and would fit ancient rhetorical theological style?

Would we expect it to be technical? What is the interpretive frame that ought to be used when looking at this section in the Book of Mormon or any other section of scripture. Literal?

It might be well to look a bit more at how ancient Near Eastern religious texts 'argue' to make a theological point.

Remember, we are looking at EVERYTHING with modern eyes.

Regards,
MG

Responses that are essentially a 'workaround' on what has been said in my post have been the result of my post. No direct confrontation with the meat of what has been said. If one comes into a discussion already convinced that the author of the modern-day canon of scripture is 'corrupt' they will not look for internal textual associations with the ancient world.

And for some, it always comes back to one particular 'pet peeve' that is the smoking gun that in their opinion throws the Restoration narrative under the rug.

Regards,
MG

I'm still waiting for clarification as to whether it is OK to refer someone over to the AI megathread for further information on anyone topic as long as absolutely no cut and pasting is going on from here to there or from there to any one thread.

That seems like an honest compromise doesn't it?

Otherwise, information is limited and folks don't even have the opportunity to 'sift' through more rather than less information. Philo has found it interesting and effective to do so. He's one of 'the guys'.

If it is OK I would have referred folks over to that thread earlier from this one already.

Regards,
MG