Michael Heiser, Myth, and My Evolving Approaches to Study of Ancient Scripture


14 January, 2012 - [ 2 Comments ]

nephilim

Recently, Michael Heiser placed online (temporarily) a first draft of his book, "The Myth That Is True". Among Biblical Studies circles, Heiser is well known for his scholarship concerning the Divine Council in the Bible. He was made more well known in Mormon academic communities by his somewhat lengthy exchanges/debates with LDS Scholar David Bokovoy.

Having a bit of interest in the development and interconnection of OT theology, myth, and history, I excitedly placed the digital draft of Heiser's book on my Kindle, and began to read.

No, God didn’t give my wife Cancer.


19 December, 2011 - [ 5 Comments ]

spockIn this past Sunday's Gospel Doctrine lesson on the Johanine Epistles, there was a discussion about God's love, and how we all should all be able to not just know about it, but truly feel it. It was suggested that one thing that can cause one to be unable to feel the full effects of that love is sinful behavior. A further conclusion was stated that if someone is unable to feel God's love, they should take a look at their life, and find out what they need to repent of in order to get right with God.

I quickly voiced an, umm,  clarified perspective.

While it is true that there is sinful behavior that can perhaps dull one's spiritual and emotional sensitivity, that should never be the first assumption one makes if someone shares that they are having difficulty feeling God's love.

I have known individuals who have suffered from clinical depression. One of the effects of this can be the deep inability to feel  any pleasant emotion. Our class teacher was quick to acknowledge this, relating an example of  a family member who suffered depression who confided that while they knew intellectually at that time that they loved their children, they just couldn't feel it at that time. That alone was devastating.

To tell someone who is already depressed that they are depressed and unfeeling because they are a sinner is horrible, destructive, and completely insulting not only to the suffering individual, but to God as well.

D&C 3: My Translation


9 December, 2011 - [ No Comment ]

jacob-wrestling

Introduction

My "Translation" (see my introduction to this project here) of Doctrine and Covenants 3 was a different experience than the one of D&C1. D&C 1, in its original,  was directed to the entire Church, and was very much a public exhortation. D&C 3 is an extremely personal message of combined chastisement and reassurance.

This was never as clear to me as it was when trying to unpack this as a personalized message. Joseph had been going forth with the Book of Mormon project. Martin Harris, after bugging Joseph to show the manuscript to his family in order to foster some household unity, was allowed to do so. This resulted in the loss, or rather theft, of the manuscript.

This, in association with the death of a child, sent Joseph into depression, and self-doubt about his standing and worth before God. This revelation came during this period. Rendering it as an internal monologue brought its power incredibly close to home for me. In it, we see Joseph's struggle with his calling, his self-worth, working out what he knows about God and his plans and his own effect on them, and what his mission is in life. It ends with a new realization and conviction of his charge. In the revelation, which is very much a personal wrestle, Joseph understood and learned something about God's love and mercy, and then realized it was his mission to spread that knowledge further. It's powerful, and raw. And I think we miss some of that when re-rendered as a stilted KJV-ese mandate from the Voice of God. It causes a degree of separation that, for me, hid some of the raw emotion and power behind it. I am very much enjoying - and learning from - this process of 'retranslation'.

Unlike the previous attempt, I have, for the most part, ignored verse numbers, and added my own paragraphing as it fit my prose.

D&C 1: My Translation


8 December, 2011 - [ 1 Comment ]
book_of_commandmentsThe following comes from a new approach I've taken to studying the Doctrine and Covenants, as an attempt to find how the text can speak to me today, and wondering how it would sound if it was presented in a current idiom, also stripped from the "First Person Divine Dictation" rhetorical device. Since the current Apostles and Prophets have no longer seen a need to continue this device with their current messages to the Church, I feel alright with following their precedent in the personal updating of this message for a modern day.As such, this  would definitely not be considered a "Formal Equivalent" translation, but more of a Functional Translation - an updating and revising of the language to speak to me, personally,  today. I have sought to strip away the mechanics of Joseph's language and rhetoric, and sought to find what the freshness of the underlying revelation may have attempted to convey.I don't expect everyone to see the same things I do, or agree with all, or even most, of my decisions in re-rendering the message. That's fine. I'm not acting as translator for the Church, I'm not proclaiming special insight for everyone, I'm not claiming to present New Scripture.

But I am  performing a personal study and "likening" for myself. If it serves as a catalyst for someone else approaching the scriptures in a similar way, and finding a new way for the scriptures to speak to them, then that's fantastic. Just don't set me up as trying or claiming to do (or be) something I'm not.

With that said, I bring you what I see - at least today -  when I read the first section of the Doctrine and Covenants. (You can see the original scriptural basis here ).

Ideological Conversion (or, I Have A Testimony of The Green Gospel: Now What?)


23 November, 2011 - [ 4 Comments ]

how-to-recycle-newI've learned from sad experience that choosing to convert to a moderate secular ideological outlook and/or praxis can, in some ways, be both very similar to, and at times more difficult, than converting to a new religion.

When you commit to a religion, there's generally different degrees of regular support built in.

NOTICE: Upcoming Mormon Studies Books


4 November, 2011 - [ 8 Comments ]

bookstackJust wanted to note some of what are, to me, some of the most interesting and intriguing books coming up in Mormon Studies -specifically related to Mormon historical and theological development -  in the next few months as well as the upcoming year. Is there anything else not listed here you think I should be aware of? Let me know in the comments below!

Also, if you haven't seen it yet, the Joseph Smith Papers Online Edition has recently published online the entire 1830, 1837, 1840, and 1841 editions of the Book of Mormon, as well as the 1844 Doctrine and Covenants (the edition not reprinted in full in JSP:RT2 – Published Revelations). That in and of itself is amazing.

Church Historian's Press

November 15, 2011 –

Spring 2012

  • Joseph Smith Papers, Histories, Volume 1

Fall 2012

  • Joseph Smith Papers, Histories, Volume 2

Oxford University Press

December 2011 –

Future -

Greg Kofford Books

December 2011 -

Early 2012 (Note that the prices listed for many of these below titles - the $999.99 ones – are only placeholders!)

Spring 2012

Summer 2012

Harvard University Press

Fall 2012 (?)

REVIEW: “Knowing Brother Joseph Again: Perceptions and Perspectives”, by Davis Bitton


29 October, 2011 - [ 2 Comments ]


Bitton - KnowingTitle:
"Knowing Brother Joseph Again: Perceptions and Perspectives"

Author: Davis Bitton

Publisher: Greg Kofford Books

Year: 2011

Price: $19.95  (paperback), $9.95 (Amazon Kindle)

Who was Joseph Smith?

It's a great question. And during this "Mormon Moment" when people are asking "What is Mormonism?", it's not a far jump to the next inevitable questions concerning its founder.

The simple and highly general assertion, "Joseph Smith was a man who in the early 1800s produced the Book of Mormon, and then later formed what would become known as the Mormon Church", might be enough for some just wanting to know general context. But many, upon being introduced to this figure, will want to know more.

But when the question is asked, what are they looking for? A History lesson? A Missionary Discussion? Are they looking for Top Ten Reasons To Love Brother Joseph? Or are they more interested in Top Ten Reasons to Demonize Ol' Jo Smith? Do they even know those widely different options exist, or why they do exist?

The late Davis Bitton's essay collection Knowing Brother Joseph Again: Perceptions and Perspectives may be my new favorite "Intro to Joseph" text.

Jesus’ First Vision


8 September, 2011 - [ 9 Comments ]

jesus-baptismI want to begin this post by plugging the fantastic series A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus by John Meier. In unexpected ways, it  has been a wonderful companion to my study of early LDS Church history. The series, written by a believing Catholic scholar, sets out to present all that is knowable about the historical figure Jesus of Nazareth from purely a scholastic perspective, a set of data that could be agreed upon by a theoretical 'unpapal conclave' made up of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Atheists, and others. It deeply analyzes the culture of the time, and asks many provocative questions I had not even considered asking.

The second volume in the series ( Volume 2: Mentor, Message, and Miracles) opens with an exploration of John the Baptist, and what we can understand concerning Jesus' relationship to him. In the course of this, the question was raised as to why Jesus actually went to John to be baptized.

LDS generally have a quick answer to that question, an interpretation coming from the Book of Mormon's  meditative take on the subject in 2 Nephi 31:6-8:

6 And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?

7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.

8 Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.

This is generally simplified and summed up to express, "Jesus was baptized because baptism was a commandment, and he did it to set an example."

The assumption generally comes that when Christ was baptized, and the sign of the dove appeared with the concurrent voice declaring his Sonship, that this was nothing new to Jesus, but was rather meant for the benefit of others.

While I had earlier been turned to think of this experience as being a first apocalyptic-esque vision experience for Jesus ( inspired by a reading of Margaret Barker's The Revelation of Jesus Christ), Meir's book substantially added to the power of this concept for me.

Meier asks about Jesus' motivations for receiving John's baptism, a baptism that was presented as a unique means of declaring one's allegiance to God, and as a sign of protection and one's freedom of sin, against the coming fiery Eschaton.

The question is first raised, "Was Jesus baptized by John because he was a sinner?" - it is immediately pointed out that, from a historical and scholastic perspective,  this is an impossible question. Since Sin is by definition that which is unpleasing to God and separates one from him, one cannot historically and scholastically determine if anyone has done anything that is 'unpleasing to God and separates one from him'.

The relevant question, however, is, “"Was Jesus baptized because he thought he could have been a sinner?"

This question blew me away. I had never even considered it before.

REVIEW: “The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon”, by Brant Gardner


5 August, 2011 - [ 8 Comments ]

giftandpower

Title: "The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon"

Author: Brant Gardner

Publisher: Greg Kofford Books

Year: 2011

Price: $34.95 (Available at Amazon.com for 23.07),  or in a two-part Kindle edition, priced at $9.95 each: Part 1, Part 2.

There are three key things that, if a book or paper can accomplish at least one, will instantly endear a book  to my heart forever - completely aside from whether or not I agree with the author's main or final conclusions:

  1. Cause me to reassess and legitimately question (or even change) a current firmly held position or belief.
  2. Cohesively articulate a concept I had already been independently working on, but in a manner far better and more comprehensive than I could possibly have done.
  3. Help me to re-evaluate my own life, and clarify my own understanding of my own personal lived experience.

As much as #1 and #2 seem to be of necessity mutually exclusive, Brant Gardner's new book "The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon" , which I was grateful to receive as an Advanced Reading Copy from the publisher, happened to do both. And, perhaps more meaningful to me, also accomplished #3.

As a convert to the LDS Church in my early twenties, I have an interesting relationship with the Book of Mormon. Since my first encounter with the Book, as a skeptical and cynical critic, my opinions and theories pertaining to its origin have changed in dramatic ways.

I have run the gamut from viewing it as being a completely uninspired hoax, to being a literal word-for-word divine dictation, from expanded modernized interpretation of an ancient record to an inspired 19th century pseudepigraphon.

Following my first recognition of Something Good inherent in the Book, I have never since regarded the motivations and source of the text as anything but benevolent, and inspired in one way or another.

But everything around its production - especially the more I studied the historical background of Biblical texts, as well as the modern details of Joseph's youth and the circumstances surrounding the production of the English text of the Book - kept me thinking, and puzzled, wondering how it all 'worked'. What about the anachronisms? What about the language? What about the revisions?

While not answering every single possible question one might think of, Gardner, in this physically slim tome, still covers an unprecedented amount of material ranging all over the scope of Mormon Studies, even creeping into realms of cognitive science(!).

Gardner writes like a gifted diplomat. He finds value in nearly all that has been published on the subjects under discussion, believing apologist and unbelieving critic alike. You will find favorable use of the works of Dan Vogel and D. Michael Quinn right next to the findings of Richard Bushman, Royal Skousen and Blake Ostler. This book does not invalidate or denigrate any of their valuable work, but rather builds upon it, validating much of their efforts, and yet weaving it together in innovative and clarifying ways I didn't think could be possible.

Many other prominent scholars who are not specifically writing on the texts of Mormonism are also utilized, and not simply as proof-texts to confirm an already decided point of view.

In fact, Gardner states several times throughout the book itself that what he found through the process of his writing of this book was not completely in tune to what he expected to find.

Make no mistake, the book is certainly written from a faithful perspective. That is, it begins with the assumption that the Book of Mormon is in fact a legitimate translation of an ancient record. The Book does not attempt to explain why he holds this conclusion - as much of that discussion can be found throughout Gardner's master multi-volume Second Witness: An Analytical Commentary on the Book of Mormon.

This book focuses on not the "if" of it being a translation, but rather the "how", or process of transmission.

The process by which Gardner presents his theory is a masterful layering of material, that at times may initially appear unrelated to the issue at hand. However, in the final chapter, every skillful layer is brought together in a way more impactful than I could have imagined it. The book is a journey - and it's a fun one to travel though.

A key theme that gets hammered home pretty well in the early chapters is the importance of removing from our mindset a "religion vs. magic" dichotomy.

The history - and importance - of the exploring the so-called"Magic World View" of Mormon origins is given an important contextualizing survey, from Mark Hoffman to Quinn to the review of Quinn by Stephen Ricks and Daniel C. Peterson, to Dan Vogel.  This is not just some attempt to "normalize" or "inoculate" against the strange view of Joseph Smith the scryer sitting with his head in a hat staring into a seer stone.

While at times presenting repetitive themes that are then seemingly tossed aside, the concept Gardner hammers home – about those actions which we might classify as "magic" being in many cases simply  primitive attempts to scientifically explain otherwise unexplainable actual lived and observed results and experiences -  is in fact an essential part of understanding Gardner's closing argument.

Now... what exactly is Gardner's ultimate theory or argument?

There's a reason Gardner presented it all in a full-length book. I find it extremely difficult to do it justice here.

But to put it very briefly, Gardner argues that the meaning of the content of the historic Book of Mormon was, for all intents and purposes, 'deposited' or revealed as pre-language 'mentalese', or the brain's native Language of Thought, which Joseph's brain was then able to 'translate' or work out into his own written and spoken language.

He argues that some of the way this was manifest to Joseph's consciousness was through his eidetic memory, the scientific term for the documented means of visually recalling information and memories. It was not a matter of Joseph seeing with his eyes, but seeing with his brain - like we all do when we dream. And, technically, how we see in general. The eyes provide information, the brain interprets that information - and sometimes plays tricks on us, and adds its own ideas - and creatively removes other actual data. The interpretation of the light images by the brain is really what we see with. In this case, Joseph's brain was getting images from the Divine Deposit - not his eyes, and not a random dream.

The seer stone was simply a dark object used as a focusing device, which Joseph had been comfortable using during his youthful time as a scryer, or seer - it was his own way of understanding and describing and projecting his eidetic experiences. Gardner explains in modern scientific terms what Joseph understood with a "folk" explanation, that we today generally write off as "magic".

So yes, Gardner explains, Joseph did translate, but he wasn't translating directly from Reformed Egyptian, or even use the plates at all. He was translating from the divinely deposited raw meaning of the text, and working it out into his own language.

Concepts were expressed as concepts, while maintaining structure. Names and proper nouns were transmitted the same way our brains record them - as specific literal data, and not simply as a 'meaning'. While this sacrifices some of the popular attempts and needs of some to classify certain terms and phases as Hebraisms, it still does quite strongly allow for ancient structural and poetic patterns to come through, although not always perfectly.

This is admittedly just a very crude summation of the ideas expressed in the book, and I almost feel I need to apologize for it. It doesn't do this work justice by far.

Yet these observations not only potentially explain in a very cohesive and coherent way the process of revelation for the Book of Mormon that accounts for many of the idiosyncrasies of the text, but also has implications for all Revelations - especially when taking into consideration Joseph's tendency to revise them, and understand them better as time went on.

In fact, at risk of sounding hyperbolic, I like to refer to it as Gardner's Grand Unifying Theory of Revelation.

If the initial Revelation was in and of itself a physical experiential deposit in Joseph's brain/memory, as he gained more understanding, returning to that Deposit would allow greater understanding and meaning and significance to that event. He would have had a wider vocabulary and context with which to express that embedded Experience.

It has particularly interesting implications for Joseph's adapting understanding and expressions of the First Vision experience, as well as other Divine Manifestations, including, as I see it, the experiences of commissioning to what was later understood as the reception of Priesthood Authority.

On a far more personal note, it also has some fascinating explanatory implication - and resonates quite eerily – with my early experience I wrote about previously , where, as a young teenager, before having learned anything about Mormonism,  I somehow worked out the story of the Restoration (along with VERY similar significant pronouns) in the context of exploring thoughts and concepts that came to my mind as a result of pondering relevant concepts and questions.

When all is said and done, I see this as one of the most important and groundbreaking books to come out in the field of Mormon Studies, at a time where there are many important and groundbreaking books coming out in this very rich and expanding field.

Do not miss this one.

Available at Amazon.com in hardcopy for $23.07, or in a two-part Kindle edition, priced at $9.95 each: Part 1, Part 2.

The Three Rejected Roles of Satan


16 July, 2011 - [ 11 Comments ]

image

There is a fascinating narrative string in LDS scripture and sacred drama as it currently stands involving the Satan figure, and his repeated rejection and rebellion against the "chosen others" granted key roles in the Eternal Plan of God. Each event involves an explanation as to how Satan distanced himself from God, and was "cast out".

Read critically, Moses 4:1-4 and Abraham 3:26-28, in connection with the Temple's Endowment narrative, each involve separate motives and events, but, upon completion, craft an intriguing continuity.

While we are accustomed to reading the first two of these narratives as telling the same story (Satan's desire to be the Savior figure and being rejected for pride), a close reading shows that this is not what was intended.

( EDIT: This is my interpretation, which is not without valid contest. See the discussion in the comments below - especially the comments by aquinas – for how this interpretation may or may not have validity with the history of this text. )

Moses ( actually a part Joseph Smith's revision and expansion of Genesis) tells of the rejection of Satan as the Savior figure. Abraham  presents the rejection of Satan as the First Man. The Temple presents the rejection of Satan as the authorized Granter of Knowledge.

First is the text of Moses 4:1-4:

Satan...came before me, saying--Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.

But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me--Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.

Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

4And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.

Note particularly that "the first" to make a proposal here is Satan, which is rejected in light of the proposal of "the second", which is the humble response of the Beloved Son. The writing of this in mid to late 1830 was probably  contemporary with the writing of Doctrine and Covenants 29:36-37, which reinforces the desire for the Lord's role of honor:

[T]he devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency; And they were thrust down, and thus came the devil and his angels;

Abraham 3:26-28,probably written around 1842, present the significantly different account of Satan's rebellion in a different setting. Due to the oblique nature of referring to the personages, I've added editorial labels to clarify the individuals in play:

And God [IE, the Father] saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

And there stood one among them that was like unto God [Jesus, the 'Son of Man'], and he [IE, Jesus] said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.

And the Lord [Jesus] said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man [IE, Michael] Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.

And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him.

Here, it is "the first", one "like unto the Son of Man" that is accepted for being sent, and "the second" which is angry, and "kept not his first estate" - here, the mission under consideration is the beginning of 'keeping their second estate'.

We can take these as two individual unrelated and contradictory narratives (which, to a degree they are), or we can view them as a fascinating narrative progression, where first the Satan figure initially strove for the highest level position, was rejected, and then tried out for the next highest position – the next most important role in the Eternal Plan, underneath the authority of the role he was initially rejected for.

And he's rejected there, too.

In the course of the development of the Fall narrative, this adds some nuance as to the next essential role we see Satan playing: usurping the role of the Granter of Knowledge.

He is tired of getting rejected, and takes matters into his own hands. While the idea of Satan being the one tempting Adam and Eve to take the forbidden fruit is old and traditional – even appearing explicitly in the earliest strings of uniquely Mormon scripture -  certain elements of the motivations and method were not fully expressed and developed until the presentation of the Temple ritual, where the figure of Satan expresses, both to Adam and to God,  that he is, "doing that which has been done" before, doing that which would "make them wise". That he is helping them progress the same way God did. When he is punished, it is not not denied that what he did was something that would have been done anyway - it was simply not his to do, and not at that time.

And once again, he is rejected and cursed, which leads to an extended and specific plan and vow/rant of rebellion. If he cannot play a starring role, he will attempt to ruin and overturn the plan.

It will be noted that even after rejection, Satan still claims the titles of the roles he was explicitly rejected for. He proclaims himself as "Son of God" worthy of worship (see Moses 1:19), and even later, explicitly proclaims himself,  "God of this world", the object of prayer.

In separate narrative strings, he strives to frustrate and tempt the roles he desired to fill. He famously tempts Jesus to get him to fail, and submit to him (see Luke 4). He tempts Adam. He tempts and threatens the messengers of Knowledge.

Perhaps, with the thought that if they failed, he would be justified in saying, "See? That wouldn't have happened if you'd picked me." - like a jilted actor rejected from a dream role who now openly desires the whole production to fail - and then blames its failure on its lack of inclusion of he as the star.