Alma 13 and the Coming of Christ

In a page entitled, "Book of Mormon Questions," Al Case, a former member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, under the section, "Book of Mormon Style and Inconsistencies," posed the following criticism:

Why did Alma not know when Christ was coming (Alma 13:21-26) even though he possessed plates and Lehi and Nephi had written precisely when he would arrive?

The pericope reads as follows (emphasis added):

And now it came to pass that when Alma had said these words unto them, he stretched forth his hand unto them and cried with a mighty voice saying, Now is the time to repent for the day of salvation draweth nigh; yea, and the voice of the Lord, by the mouth of angels, doth declare it unto all nations; yea, doth declare it, that they may have glad tidings of great joy; yea, and he doth sound these glad tidings among all his people, yea, even to them that are scattered abroad upon the face of the earth; wherefore they have come unto us. And they are made known unto us in plain terms, that we may understand, that we cannot err; and  this because of our being wanderers in a strange land; therefore we are thus highly favoured, for we have these glad tidings declared unto us in all parts of our vineyard. For behold, angels are declaring it unto many at this time in our land, and this is for the purpose of preparing the hearts of the children of men to receive his word at the time of his coming in his glory. And now we only want to hear the joyful news declared unto us by the mouth of angels of his coming for the time cometh, we know not how soon. Would to God that it might be in my days; but let it be sooner or later, in it I will rejoice.

Alma is speaking of Jesus’ “coming in glory,” that is, the “Second Coming” or parousia; not his birth. The Book of Mormon, when referencing the Second Advent of Christ speaks of it, not his birth, as His coming in glory:

And behold, according to the words of the prophets , the Messiah will set himself again the second time to recover them; wherefore, he will manifest himself unto them in power and great glory unto the destruction of their enemies , when that day cometh when they shall believe in him, and none will he destroy that believe in him. (2 Nephi 6:14)

And now many days hence the Son of God will come in his glory, and his glory shall be the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace, equity, and truth, all of patience, mercy, and long suffering full of grace, equity, and truth, full of patience, mercy, and long-suffering, quick to hear the cries of his people and to answer their prayers. (Alma 9:26)

And many of the people did inquire concerning the place where the son of God should come, and they were taught that he would appear unto them after his resurrection; and this the people did hear with great joy and gladness. (Alma 16:20)

And he did expound all things even from the beginning until the time that he should come in his glory—yea, even all things which should come upon the face of the earth, even until the elements should melt with fervent heat, and the earth should be wept together as a scroll, and the heavens and the earth should pass away. (3 Nephi 26:3)

Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven. (3 Nephi 28:7)

Would may object that Alma’s use of the phrase, “would to God that it might be in my days” as evidence Alma expected the event to happen in his lifetime. However, as John Tvedtnes has noted:

[T]he opposite is true. There are two Hebrew expressions that the King James translators rendered "would [to] God that" or "would that."[24] In all but one case that I found in the Bible (Genesis 30:34),[25] the situation being described is clearly one that is impossible of fulfillment. Note the following:

"Would to God we had died" (Exodus 16:3); "would God that we had died" (Numbers 14:2 [twice]; 20:3); "would God I had died for thee" (2 Samuel 18:33); the speakers obviously hadn't died.

"Would to God that all the Lord's people were prophets" (Numbers 11:29); unfortunately, they were not.

"Would to God we had been content, and dwelt on the other side Jordan" (Joshua 7:7); they had, however, crossed the river.

"Would to God this people were under my hand! then would I remove Abimelech" (Judges 9:29); the speaker did not govern the people.

"I would there were a sword in mine hand" (Numbers 22:29); there wasn't.

In addition to Alma 13:25, the Book of Mormon uses the expression "would to God" in two other passages, both of which reflect an impossibility of fulfillment:

"Would to God that we could persuade all men not to rebel against God" (Jacob 1:8); they couldn't.

"I would to God that ye had not been guilty of so great a crime" (Alma 39:7); the crime had already been committed.

Notes for the Above:

24. Neither Hebrew idiom mentions God. The King James translators similarly added the divine title in another Hebrew expression, changing "may the king live" to "God save the king," to correspond to the formula used in the British coronation ceremony (1 Samuel 10:24; 2 Samuel 16:16; 2 Kings 11:12; 2 Chronicles 23:11).

25. Even this may have been intended by Laban as an expression of impossibility.

Marianne Meye Thompson on "seeing God"

If God cannot be seen, it is not because God is invisible, but because God hides himself or because “no one can see God and live.” The possibility of seeing God always remains; but it is qualified in numerous ways, due, perhaps, to the character and nature of God, to the virtue or status of the particular individual, or to the variety of ways in which “seeing” can be understood.

Marianne Meye Thompson, “Jesus: ‘The one Who Sees God’,” in Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity: Essays in Honour of Larry W. Hurtado and Alan F. Segal, eds. David B. Capes, April D. DeConick, Helen K. Bond, and Troy A. Miller (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007), 215-26, here, p. 221.

Notes on John 4:24 and Divine Embodiment

"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24 [NRSV])

John 4:24 is one of the most common proof-texts used against the Latter-day Saint belief that God the Father is embodied. However, from the get-go, one must note the irony that most critics who raise this verse are Trinitarians. Why? In this verse, there is a differentiation, not just between the persons of Jesus and the Father, but between Jesus and God (θεος)! Notwithstanding, there are some elements on this verse that are often overlooked by critics.

Firstly, the Greek of this verse is:

πνεῦμα ὁ θεός, καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτὸν ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν

The phrase, often translated, “God is spirit” is in bold. In Greek grammar, this is a qualitative predicate nominative, which deals with, not composition, but one's qualities. Furthermore, from the context, this refers to man’s worship of God, not the composition of deity. Jesus is addressing a Samaritan, whose theology privileged Mount Gezirim, while the Jews privileged Jerusalem, one of the many disputes between them. Jesus, instead, echoing the universalism of the New Covenant, states that proper worship of God will not be localised in one place. In other words, this verse does not address God's physiological nature--only the means by which men communicate with God. Such must be done spiritually (i.e., spirit to spirit), and must develop a spiritual nature.

Furthermore, taking the absolutist view of this verse to its "logical" conclusion, one would have to state that it is a requirement that men are to shed their physical bodies in order to worship God--if God is only spirit and this passage requires men to worship God "in spirit," then men must worship God only in spirit. Thus, to cite John 4:24 against the teachings of Mormon theology is to claim that men cannot worship God as mortal beings, which is ludicrous. It would also akin to absolutising 1 Cor 15:45, and stating that Christ currently exists in an unembodied spirit, notwithstanding Christ's corporeal ascension (Acts 1:11) and His being depicted as embodied in post-ascension visions of Jesus (e.g., Acts 7:55-56).

A related criticism that has been raised by some opponents (e.g., Craig Blomberg in How Wide the Divide?) is that if God were to possess a physical body, this would make divine omnipresence impossible as God would be rendered "limited" or "finite" by that body. Therefore, God, in LDS theology, could not be omnipresent, something required by this verse. However, Latter-day Saints affirm only that the Father has a body, not that his body has him. The Father is corporeal and infinitely more, and if a spirit can be omnipresent without being physically present, then so can a God who possess a body and a spirit.

Indeed, the Bible affirms that, though the Father has a body (e.g., Heb 1:3), His glory, influence, and power fills the universe (Jer 23:34). He is continually aware of everything in the universe and can communicate with, and travel to, any spot instantaneously (Psa 139:7-12).

Furthermore, a question that is begged is that “spirit” is immaterial. However, many early Christians believed that “spirit” was material (e.g., Origen, On First Principles, Preface 9 and Tertullian, Against Praxaes, 7), something consistent with LDS theology (D&C 131:7).

Another related verse is Luke 24:39. However, as with John 4:24, this is another example of eisegesis. What Evangelical critics fail to note is that the converse of the statement is not true. A living physical body most definitely does have a spirit. In fact, it is physically dead without one (James 2:26). A spirit alone does not have a physical body. But if God has a physical body, he also has a spirit. Therefore, even though God is corporeal, it is appropriate to say that God "is spirit" (as in John 4:24), for spirit is the central part of His nature as a corporeal being.

Moreover, it would not be appropriate to say that God is only a spirit based on this verse--here, Christ clearly has a spirit and a physical body. His spirit had just been recombined with His perfected and glorified physical body in the resurrection, a point He took great pains to demonstrate (Luke 24:41-43). He was not, however, "a spirit" in the sense of being only a spirit.

Finally, in unique LDS Scripture, we find something similar to John 4:24 echoed in D&C 93:33-35:

For man is spirit, The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy. And when separated man cannot receive a fullness of joy. The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.

In this pericope, man is said to be “spirit,” though such does not preclude embodiment.

Volcanism in Book of Mormon Lands and Mesoamerica

In 3 Nephi 8, there is a description of a great catastrophe in the Book of Mormon lands, one that matches volcanic activity (e.g., mists of darkness; terrible storms; whirlwinds; lightning and thunder; cities being destroyed by burning, being sunk into the ocean, or being covered with either earth or rising waters, etc).

Interestingly, there is strong evidence of such volcanic activity in Mesoamerica, the area most Book of Mormon scholars believe to be the lands of the Book of Mormon (on this, see, for e.g., John L. Sorenson, Mormon's Codex: An Ancient American Books [2013]) and in the right time (about 30 C.E.).

An important article on this issue would be: Benjamin R. Jordan, "Volcanic Destruction in the Book of Mormon: Possible Evidence from Ice Cores," in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003): 78-87, 118-19, online here.

The abstract of the article reads:

Third Nephi 8 preserves a written account of a natural disaster at the time of Christ’s death that many assume to have been caused by volcanic activity. In a modernday science quest, the author examines research done on glacial ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica. Ice-core records can reveal volcanic gases and ashes that are carried throughout the world—the gases are detected by measuring the acidity of the ice at various layers. Many factors influence the findings and the proposed datings of the volcanic events. The ice-core records offer some evidence, though not conclusive, of a volcanic eruption around the time of Christ’s death

LDS apologist, Jeff Lindsay, offers a good summary this evidence provides for Book of Mormon historicity:

If the Book of Mormon is true, then we should expect to find evidence of significant volcanic activity (according to the description of events in 3 Nephi) around 33 A.D., and that activity should be in Mesoamerica (based on the best understanding of Book of Mormon geography, independent of any considerations of volcanism). So we have a simple test that cannot be obscured by the tragedy of destroyed written records or the complexities of archeological interpretation of a fragmentary and complex record. We can simply ask: was there volcanic activity in Mesoamerica around 33 A.D.? This is something that ought to be hard to miss if it occurred. And the answer is clear and irrefutable: yes, there was impressive volcanic activity in Mesoamerica dating to that time, activity of the kind that would fit the Book of Mormon account remarkably well. There is even a city that was partially buried by the huge lava flow from that event. Please look at the detailed evidence on this issue and ask how Joseph Smith, who knew nothing about volcanoes, could accurately describe the results of volcanic activity, and manage to have the date of the event later be confirmed by scientists in a land that corresponds with Book of Mormon lands? It will take a LOT of faith to ascribe this issue to luck.

Resources on Roman Catholicism

When Pope Francis was elected pope in 2013, I witnessed a lot of fellow Latter-day Saints praising the new pope and wishing God’s blessings upon his and his pontificate on facebook and other venues (even if his first act as pope was idolatrous [a prayer to Mary]); furthermore, in light of the recent meetings between LDS and Catholic leaders addressing moral issues, I have no doubt that many within the Church will hope for theological, not just moral, ecumenism in the near future. For those of us who have studied Rome’s history and theology, however, this is polar opposite of what any Latter-day Saint should hope for—what Rome teaches as dogma about issues such as the papacy, Mary, the Mass, veneration of images, etc., falls under the anathema of Gal 1:6-9. This stance may make me unpopular, but so be it.

For those wishing to study the real issues about Roman Catholicism, I would recommend the following (broken down into [1] sources and [2] works refuting, biblically and/or historically, Catholic dogmas on central issues—Mary, the Papacy, the Mass, and the early Councils); at the end, I have included some Catholic apologetic and scholarly works on various issues, too:

Heinrich Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma

Ludwig Ott, The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

Jacques Dupuis, The Christian Faith

Catechism of the Council of Trent (AKA The Roman Catechism)

1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church

1983 Code of Canon Law

Documents of Vatican II (1962-1965)

Karl Josef von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (5 vols.)

Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism

The Harper-Collins Encyclopedia of  Catholicism, ed. Richard P. McBrien

Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (8 vols.)

Idem. Creeds of Christendom (3 vols.)

Eric Svendsen, Who is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism

Stephen J. Shoemaker, The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption

J.E. Merdinger, Rome and the African Church in the Time of Augustine

William Webster, The Matthew 16 Controversy: Peter and the Rock

Edward Denny, Papalism

Michael Whelton, The Two Paths

Michael Tierney, The Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty, and Tradition in the Middle Ages

George Salmon, Infallibility and the Church

Ignatius Von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council

J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes

Laurent A. Cleenewerck, His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches

John F. Bigane, III, Faith, Christ or Peter: Matthew 16:18 in Sixteenth Century Roman Catholic Exegesis

Henri de Lubac, Corpus Mysticum: The Eucharist in the Church in the Middle Ages

Edward J. Kilmartin, The Eucharist in the West: History and Theology

John Philip Jenkins, Jesus Wars

Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory

Ramsay MacMullen, Voting about God in Early Church Councils


Pro-Catholic Apologetic Works


Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification

Idem. Not By Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice

Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura ed. Robert A. Sungenis

B.C. Butler, The Church and Infallibility

Scott Butler et al. Jesus, Peter, and the Keys

Steve Ray, Upon This Rock

Idem. Crossing the Tiber

Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism

Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction

Idem. Any Friend of God is a Friend of Mine

Scott Hahn, Kinship by Covenant

James T. O'Connor, The Hidden Manna

Dave Armstrong, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism

Idem. The Catholic Verses

Idem. Pillars of Sola Scriptura

John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine

Idem. Lectures on Justification

Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions

George Agius, Tradition and the Church


Tim Staples, Behold your Mother

John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament

Martin Sheehan, Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

Mark Shea, By What Authority?

Trent Horn, The Case for Catholicism: Answers to Classic and Contemporary Protestant Objections

Comments on the Holy Spirit, Genesis 1:26, and Adoption

I've been fighting an illness over the past few days, so did not have much time for blogging. However, to make up for it, I am reproducing a few interesting comments I encountered in my readings that may be of some interest:

Within the Judaism of the time, the possession of the holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, was regarded as the mark of prophecy: therefore, Jesus’ inspiration and equipping for ministry by the Spirit of God signifies that he was (and probably regarded himself as) a prophet. His claim to possess the Spirit is quite explicit if “the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” (Mark 3:29) is rightly interpreted as the denial of the divine source of the spirit power with which Jesus casts out demons.

David Hill, New Testament Prophecy (Atlanta: John Knox, 1979), as cited by Stevan Davies, Spirit Possession and the Origins of Christianity (Dublin: Bardic Press, 2014), 79.

Turning to the rest of the verse [Gen 1:26], we note two points of emphasis concerning the status and role of human beings in the created world: 1) status—humanity is to be made in the image of God, and 2) role—humanity is to exercise a dominant role in the governance of the earth. Concerning the first category, we note that humanity occupies a unique status in contrast with all of the other created beings on the earth: being made in the image and according to the likeness of God. The basic likeness is in physical appearance, as study of the etymology and usage of both terms show: selem and demut. These terms are used in cognate languages of statue representing gods and humans in contemporary inscriptions, and certainly the intention is to say that God and man share a common physical appearance. If or when God makes himself visible to human beings, they will recognise their own features and vice versa. The image is the same, and the basic features are comparable. While God is not human, and humans are not divine, they share a common appearance, or physique. Whenever God is described in the Hebrew Bible, he has features that human beings also have (cf. Ezekiel 1:26-28). The correspondence is by no means limited to body parts, but extends to the whole makeup of God and humans, including mind and spirit, thoughts and words. We must not press the resemblances too far, as there are constant admonitions that God is different in profound respects (cf. Isaiah 55:6-11), but these would hardly be necessary is not for the basic similarities. Only human beings, of all earthly creatures, share image and likeness with the deity.

David Noel Freedman, “The Status and Role of Humanity in the Cosmos According to the Hebrew Bible,” in On Human Nature: The Jerusalem Center Symposium, eds. Truman G. Madsen, David Noel Freedman, and Pam Fox Kuhlken (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Pryor Pettengill Publishers, Inc: 2004), 9-25, here, pp. 16-17 (square bracket my own)

Today, when one speaks of adoption, he refers to the legal process whereby a stranger becomes a member of the family. In Paul’s time, however, adoptions referred to that legal process whereby a parent placed his own child in the legal position of an adult son, with all the privileges of inheritance. Someone may question why adoption was required when the child was already a son by birth. It must be remembered that in pagan Rome, a citizen often had many wives and many children. Some of the wives may have been concubines and slaves. The citizen may not have wanted the offspring of his slave wives to receive his titles, position in society, and inheritance. The legal procedure of adoption, therefore, provided a means whereby the citizen could designate those children which he wished to be considered his legal sons and heirs. Through receiving newness of life, believers become children of God. Through adoption, the children of God are declared to be His sons, who have all the privileges and inheritance of sonship.

Alva G. Huffer, Systematic Theology (Oregon, Illin.: The Restitution Herald, 1960), 390.

The Book of Mormon and New Testament Textual Criticism

It has often been asserted that Mark 16:9-20 (the so-called “Longer Ending”) and Luke 22:43-44 are textual interpolations to the New Testament. As a result, some have questioned the historicity of the Book of Mormon, as well as the Doctrine and Covenants, where similar concepts are expressed (e.g., Mosiah 3:7; Mormon 9:22-24; D&C 19:18). However, two recent studies have challenged (successfully, IMO) the scholarly consensus on these texts.

On the longer ending of Mark, Nicholas P. Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (Pickwick Publications, 2014) offers a cogent challenge to the claim that vv.9-20 of Mark chapter 16 are not original to the gospel; instead, the author shows that the longer ending was known to Luke and Matthew, as well as the authors of early texts such as 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas, as well as refuting all the claims against this text based on word-usages.

On Luke 22:43-44, LDS scholar, Lincoln Blumell has a published article in TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism (online here) that argues that the original text of Luke had the "blood-sweat" text, but it was omitted by Christian scribes beginning in the 2nd/3rd centuries.

New Testament Gospel Doctrine Resources

I recently got called to serve as Gospel Doctrine teacher in my new branch, so expect a number of New Testament-related posts on this blog over the next couple of months. For this post, I will offer some basic recommendations for New Testament Gospel Doctrine teachers:

Kevin L. Barney et al. Footnotes to the New Testament for Latter-day Saints (online)

Mormon Interpreter Roundtable series (youtube page)

A good non-LDS introduction the New Testament would be:

Bart D. Ehrman, A Brief Introduction to the New Testament

A good non-LDS commentary on the whole Bible would be:

Raymond Brown et al. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary

The Christocentric nature of "Old Fashioned Mormonism"

It is common to hear the (grossly misinformed) claim by some Evangelical critics that Latter-day Saints only recently started to claim to be “Christian” in recent years; however, this is not only false; it is disproven by the facts (e.g., see this response by Jeff Lindsay).

The following is the concluding paragraph of a book, What Jesus Taught by Osborne J.P. Widtsoe (Deseret Book Company, 1926), p.326, which was published for the Deseret Sunday School Union, and shows that “Mormonism” has always been a Christ-centred faith, well before the time when critics claim the Church tried to become more "ecumenical":

The stone which the builders rejected has become the Christ, the Savior of the world. He is the Keystone of our salvation, He is our Master, our Teacher, our Friend. He has restored His Gospel to us with all its blessings and privileges. Him will we follow, and His commandments will we keep; for it was He Himself who said, “I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.” 

Martin Luther and the Suffering of Christ in Gethsemane

The sweating of blood and other high spiritual sufferings that Christ endured in the garden, no human creature can know or imagine; if one of us should but begin to feel the least of those sufferings, he must die instantly. There are many who dies of grief of mind; for sorrow of heart is death itself. If a man should feel such anguish and pain as Christ had, it were impossible for the soul to remain in the body and endure it—body and soul must part asunder. In Christ only it was possible, and from him issued bloody sweat. (Section 172 of The Table Talk of Martin Luther, trans. Thomas S. Kepler [Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications, 2005], p. 64).

Ulrich Zwingli and the Intercessory Work of Christ

In a previous post, I discussed the intercessory work of Christ, and it being inconsistent with the Reformed doctrine of penal substitution. I came across the following quote from Ulrich Zwingli, where he advocated the propitiatory nature, not just of Christ’s death on the cross, but his intercessory work in heaven before the Father:

For as He [Christ] offered Himself once on the cross and again to the Father in heaven, so He won and obtained remission of sins and the joy of everlasting happiness.

Source: The Latin Works of Huldreich Zwingli, trans. Macauley Jackson (2 vols.), 2:276.

A modern Protestant apologist also shows how easy it is for advocates of penal substitution to be inconsistent on this point (in the following case, a Calvinistic critique of the Catholic Mass):

He enters into the presence of the Father, having obtained eternal redemption. Christ presents Himself before the Father as the perfect oblation in behalf of His people. His work of intercession, then, is based on His work of atonement. Intercession is not another or different kind of work, but is the presentation of the work of the cross before the Father . . . the Son intercedes for men before the Father on the basis of the fact that in His death He has taken away the sins of God’s people, and therefore, by presenting His finished work on Calvary before the Father, He assures the application of the benefits of His death to those for whom He intercedes. (James R. White, The Fatal Flaw, pp. 133-134).

Geisler and MacKenzie vs. Patrick Madrid on Marian Typology

I just read the book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Baker: 1995) by Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie. Overall, the book was okay in terms of an interaction with Roman Catholicism. I thought it was better than some of the more sensationalistic, poorly-researched works on Catholicism (e.g. the works of Richard Bennet; Robert Zins; Lorainne Boettner; Jack Chick), but there are works that are better critiques of Catholicism (e.g., Eric D. Svendsen, Who is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in Roman Catholicism and Evangelical Answers; George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church). Indeed, a number of their arguments have been soundly refuted by Catholic apologetic works that have come out after the book (e.g. Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone; Not by Scripture Alone and Not by Bread Alone; Stephen Ray, Upon this Rock).

Regardless of its shortcomings, its critique of the Marian doctrines (pp.299-330) is very well done, though more interaction with the patristic literature would have been appreciated. On p. 314 n. 55, there is an excellent comment on the common Catholic appeal to Old Testament “Marian types,” most notably the Ark of the Covenant (they are responding to Patrick Madrid’s article, “Mark, Ark of the New Covenant: A Biblical look at the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary”):

One Catholic apologist calls this the “most compelling type of Mary’s Immaculate Conception” (see Madrid, “Ark of the New Covenant,” p. 12). It is only compelling if one makes the unbiblical and unjustified assumption that it is a valid analogy. One can note certain similarities between many things that prove nothing (e.g., there are many strong similarities between good counterfeit currency and genuine bills). Thus, even proponents of this view have to admit that none of this “proves” the immaculate conception (ibid.). The ineptness of these kinds of analogies surface in Madrid’s question: “If you could have created your own mother [as God did in Mary], wouldn’t you have made her the most beautiful, virtuous, perfect woman possible?” (ibid.). Sure, I would have done a lot of things differently than God did. If I were God and could have created the most beautiful place for my Son to be born it would not have been a stinky, dirty animal stable! God, however, chose otherwise.

Geisler and MacKenzie on "Divine Assurance" of the Bible by the Holy Spirit

Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie, in their 1995 book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, wrote the following on p. 179 n. 6:

Reformed theologians also believe that the Spirit of God brings divine assurance that the Bible is the Word of God. This is known as the witness of the Spirit. Only the God of the word can bring full assurance that the Bible is the Word of God.. Further, Reformed theologians acknowledge that aid of the Holy Spirit in understanding and applying the Scriptures to our lives. But he does not do this contrary to the Bible or contrary to good rules of biblical interpretation.

And yet, it is wrong for people to believe that one should pray if this very same Spirit of God can bring about divine assurance of the Book of Mormon . . . Ultimately, when all the other arguments are discussed, the Evangelical Protestant/anti-Mormon arguments against Moroni 10:3-5 boils down to the issue of Sola Scriptura, not praying about the Book of Mormon per se (funnily enough, the above quote comes from the authors’ defence of sola scriptura).

As an aside, James Stutz has a good post on a similar issue, "William Lane Craig on Spirit Experiences."

Alma 46:19 as Evidence for the Book of Mormon

Alma 46:19 reads, in part:

And when Moroni had said these words, he went forth among the people, waving the rent part of his garment in the air . . .

The 1830 Book of Mormon lacked the word, “part,” and referred to Moroni waving the “rent” of his garment. This seem unusual in English, and the addition of “part” makes perfect sense. However, this begs the question as to why Alma 46:19 read the way it did in the original texts of the Book of Mormon. John Tvedtnes answered this question in his essay, “The Hebrew Background of the Book of Mormon” in the 1991 book, Rediscovering the Book of Mormon: Insights you May Have Missed Before, ed. John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne (FARMS, 1991):

The Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon help persuade us that it is authentic. The following story will illustrate. During the years 1968-71, I taught Hebrew at the University of Utah. My practice was to ask new students to respond to a questionnaire, giving some idea of their interests and linguistic background. One student wrote that she wanted to study Hebrew in order to prove the Book of Mormon was a fraud. She approached me after class to explain.

When I inquired why she felt the Book of Mormon was fraudulent, she stated that it was full of errors. I asked for an example. She drew my attention to Alma 46:19, where we read, "When Moroni had said these words, he went forth among the people, waving the rent part of his garment in the air." She noted that in the 1830 edition (p. 351), this read simply "waving the rent of his garment." In English, the rent is the hole in the garment, not the piece torn out of the garment. Therefore, Moroni could not have waved it. This was an error, she contended, and adding the word part later was mere deception.
 This was my first introduction to variations in different editions of the Book of Mormon. Without a Hebrew background, I might have been bothered by it. But the explanation was clear when I considered how Mormon would have written that sentence. Hebrew does not have to add the word part to a verbal substantive like rent as English requires. Thus, broken in Hebrew can refer to a broken thing or a broken part,while new can refer to a new thing. In the verse the student cited, rent would mean rent thing or rent part. Thus, the "error" she saw as evidence of fraud was really a Hebraism that was evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

It should also be noted that this "oddity" appears in a couple of places in the KJV (e.g. Gen 24:22 where "shekels" is added by the translators).

The New Testament, the Tetragrammaton, and the New World Translation

As for the NT, we must first note the fact that there is no known evidence of the tetragrammaton in any surviving MS of the NT. If it were ever there, it has vanished without a trace. Secondly, as in the case of Philo, the presence of κυριος in the LXX is crucial to the interpretation of certain NT passages. Foremost among these is Ro. 10:9ff, where Paul states that salvation rests upon believing in the resurrection of Christ and confessing Jesus as Lord (Gk. . .  εαν ομολογησης εν τω στοματι κυριοω Ιησουν). He then cites some OT texts which he believes support his assertion: Is. 28:16: “No one who believes in him will be ashamed” (Ro. 10:11); and Joel 3:5, “All who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved” (Ro. 10:13). The latter is a direct quotation from the LXX: πας . . . ος αν επικαλεσηται το ονομα κυριου σωθησεται. Even if one wishes to make God the Father and not Christ the antecedent of these verses (and this is by no means certain), the passage only makes sense based on LXX texts containing κυριος. How else does one account for the phrase “for the same is Lord of all” (ο γαρ αυτος κυριος παντων) in v. 12, just before the Joel quotation? The tetragrammaton would not make grammatical sense here. It is far more likely that Paul is making a Christological statement through a deliberate juxtaposition of κυριον Ιησουν and LXX references concerning the saving power of God, ο κυριος. (Sean M. McDonough, YHWH at Patmos: Rev. 1:4 in its Hellenistic and Early Jewish Setting [Wipf and Stock: 2011], 61).

This should be something that Latter-day Saints should raise with the Jehovah’s Witnesses we encounter who claim that the New World Translation is correct in “restoring” the divine name, “Jehovah” into the New Testament texts instead of “Lord” (κυριος). There is absolutely no textual warrant for this, and much of the New Testament and its theology is rendered nonsensical, as seen above, if one assumes the “original” NT manuscripts contained the tetragrammaton.

Off topic: Help the children of Syria and Iraq

My friend, Liam McDade, is currently working for a charity helping victims of ISIS and similar attacks in predominately Kurdish areas. He forwarded me this email, so if anyone wishes to donate to this important cause, feel free to.

Dear reader,

I'm sure you're all aware of the horrific situation that faces refugees in Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Kurdistan. Fortunately most of these regions can be reached by international aid organisations and the United Nations. However, there are sadly some exceptions to this.

The region of Rojava (Western Kurdistan, Syria) is a blackhole in terms of assistance for refugees. No aid reaches them except through Heyva Sor a Kurdistane (the Kurdish Red Crescent). Fortunately they are able to provide aid to Rojava and areas such as Sinjar through their network of aid workers in the region.

The charity is registered in the European Union and has branches in Germany and Austria. There were issues in regards to aid recently as Turkey has closed the border with the region, now all aid has to be smuggled through or provided through the Kurdistan Region of Iraq when possible.

The charity provides assistance for all refugees in these unreachable regions irregardless of religion or race and as the only opportunity for assistance in the region, they are play a vital role in preserving the lives of those who have escaped the threat of terrorist organisations.

They focus their aid in the following areas:

1 - Children's Projects

2 - Health Projects
3 - Emergency Aid

We are fund raising currently in an effort to help the people, especially children, of Rojava and Sinjar as they face a cold and harsh winter while surrounded by militants of the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL). With no international focus except the Kurdish Red Crescent, hope is dimming for people and many will die as a result of this shameful neglect by the international community.

If you would like to donate please do so anonymously online at the link below:

gofund.me/ixm6zo

Thank you so much for reading this email. If you're unable to donate, please share this message and raise awareness.

The Epistle to Diognetus: Reflective of Protestant Soteriology?

Michael Kruger, a Reformed biblical scholar, has a post arguing in favour of the proposition that the Epistle to Diogentus reflects forensic soteriology (link). It is amazing to see such texts isogeted from their fuller context, though this is reflective of how many apologists abuse patristic literature (cf. William Webster et al. quote mining Athanasius to “prove” he held to sola scriptura, though he held to beliefs no proponent of sola/tota scriptua would accept).

A Catholic apologist, using the moniker “Matt1618” wrote a good refutation of the claim that the early Church Fathers taught Sola Fide; here is what he wrote on this specific text:

For what, save His righteousness, could cover our sins? In whom...could we be justified, save in the Son of God ALONE?" 

The author of the Epistle to Diognetus 8 - He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of Gob, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God BE MADE ABLE. (ANF, vol. 1, p. 28)

The author of the Epistle to Diognetus 8 Having therefore convinced us in the FORMER TIME THAT OUR NATURE WAS UNABLE to attain to life, and having now revealed the savior who is able to save even those things which it was formerly impossible to save, by both these facts he desired to lead us to trust in his kindness, to esteem him our nourisher, Father, Teacher, counselor, Healer, our Wisdom , Light, Honour, Glory, Power, and Life, so that we should not be anxious concerning clothing and food. 

He who takes upon himself the burden of his neighbour; he who, in whatsoever respect he may be superior, is ready to benefit another who is deficient; he who whatsoever thing he has received from God, by distributing these to the needy, becomes a god to those who receive his benefits: he is an imitator of God. Then thou shalt see, while still on earth that God in the heavens rules over the universe; then thou shalt see, while still on earth that God in the heavens rules over the universe; then thou shalt begin to speak the mysteries of God; then shalt thou both love and admire those that suffer punishment because they will not deny God (ANF, vol. 1, p. 177)

Conclusion - In this very short letter, there is not much in regards to justification. But of what is there, we see that what justifies is a making just, not a mere declaring just. Our own righteousness and works without grace merits nothing before God (Trent, canon 1, justification). God's grace does not merely cover us but makes us able. What was in the former nature unable to be just in God's sight is cleansed now by God's grace to merit justification. Nothing about a pile of dung just covered with snow (Luther). Not a hint of Sola Fide. 

The Ground and Pillar of the Truth

A tip to get an Evangelical Protestant acquaintance to begin to think about their faulty theology and presuppositions (based on their acceptance of sola scriptura) would be to ask them to fill in the blank in the following sentence:

The _____ is the ground and pillar of our faith

In most cases, due to their a priori acceptance of sola scriptura, they will answer “the Bible.” However, get them to open up their Bible to 1 Tim 3:15 where this comes from:

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

In other words, it is the church (ἐκκλησία), not Scripture/the Bible that is the "pillar and foundation of the truth" (NIV). This would be a good tip to get an Evangelical to be open to discussing the overwhelming biblical-exegetical case against sola scriptura, a topic I have discussed a number of times on this blog.

Jeremiah of Libnah: “Another” Jeremiah

In a previous post on OT Elijah and NT Elias, I addressed the criticism that Joseph Smith did not know that OT Elijah and NT Elias were one and the same person, showing that this can be proven to be incorrect; furthermore, I addressed a similar argument, that Joseph did not know that OT Isaiah and NT Esaias were the same person, showing that there are “other Isaiahs” (e.g. Jesaiah; Jesiah) in the Bible, so using the NT form of the name to differentiate another “Isaiah” from the (more well-known) Isaiah would be an acceptable convention to avoid confusion.

In D&C 84:10, we read:

And Jeremy under the hand of Gad.

“Jeremy” (LXX/NT: Ἰερεμίας) is the NT form of the OT Jeremiah. Some critics (e.g. Marvin Cowan, Mormon Claims Answered) have charged that Joseph Smith was ignorant of this fact. However, there are multiple people with the name “Jeremiah” (Hebrew: יִרְמְיָהוּ), such as Jeremiah of Libnah:

Jehoahaz was twenty and three years old when he began to reign; and he reigned three months in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah. (2 Kgs 23:31)

Zedekiah was twenty and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah. (2 Kgs 24:18)

Zedekiah was one and twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Hamutal the daughter of Libnah. (Jer 52:1)

Alongside the prophet with the name Jeremiah, and Jeremiah of Libnah, there are eight other individuals in the OT with the name "Jeremiah":

A Benjamite solder (1 Chron 12:4)

Two Gadite warriors (1 Chron 12:10, 13)

A chief from the tribe of Manasseh (1 Chron 5:24)

The father of Jaazaniah (Jer 35:3)

A Priest sealed with others in a covenant with God (Neh 10:2)

A priest in the days of Joiakim (Neh 12:1, 12)

A leader who took part in the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem (Neh 12:34)

There is nothing improper with Joseph Smith using “Jeremy” to differentiate a person with the same name as the more well-known prophet with the same name to avoid any confusion.

“Epistle” in the Book of Mormon

A few years ago, while dialoguing with a (grossly misinformed) anti-Mormon activist here in Ireland, Desmond Ferguson (formerly of Irish Church Missions), he stated that the word “epistle” in the Book of Mormon is an anachronism. The argument is fallacious on many points (as one who tried to interact with him over the years, this is part-and-parcel of all his “arguments”).

Firstly, it should be enough to note that the Book of Mormon purports to be a translation—therefore, it stands to reason, that the language into which it was translated is not the language from which, according to its very own claims, it was translated. It would be as stupid as one arguing that the phrase, “In the beginning” in Gen 1:1 is an anachronism, as these are English words, and English did not exist when Genesis was written (regardless of one’s position on the Documentary Hypothesis and other issues).

Secondly, the word “Epistle” is an English word. Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines it as follows:

EPIS'TLE, noun epis'l. [Latin epistola; Gr. to send to; to send.]

A writing, directed or sent, communicating intelligence to a distant person; a letter; a letter missive. It is rarely used in familiar conversation or writings, but chiefly in solemn or formal transactions. It is used particularly in speaking of the letters of the Apostles, as the epistles of Paul; and of other letters written by the ancients, as the epistles of Pliny or of Cicero.

Therefore, it is perfectly valid for Joseph Smith to have used “epistle” to denote a literary structure in the form of a letter.

Thirdly, in the Bible, we read of “letter[s]” in the Hebrew Bible:

And it came to pass in the morning, that David wrote a letter to Joab, and sent it by the hand of Uriah. And he wrote in the letter, saying, Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die. (2 Sam 11:14-15)

So he wrote the letters in Ahab's name and sealed them with his seal; she sent the letters to the elders and the nobles who lived with Naboth in his city. And she wrote in the letters, saying, Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people . . . And the men of his city, even the elders and the nobles who were the inhabitants in his city, did as Jazebel had sent unto them, and as it was written in the letters which she had sent unto them. (1 Kgs 21:8-9, 11)

Furthermore, it should be noted that the Greek term επιστολη appears throughout the LXX. Using Ferguson's "logic," this "proves" that the LXX cannot be a true translation but a pseudo-translation (1 Chron 30:1, 6; 1 Esdras 2:12, 20; 4:47, 48, 61; 6:7; Ezra 4:6, 8, 11; 5:6; Neh 2:7, 8, 9; 6:5, 17, 19; Esther 3:13, 14; 8:12 [x2]; 9:26, 29; 10:3; 1 Maccabees 8:22; 9:60; 10:3, 7, 17; 11:29, 31; 12:2, 4, 5, 7, 8; 12:17, 19, 35; 14:20; 15:1, 15; 16:19; 2 Maccabees 2:13; 9:18; 11:16, 22, 27, 34; 3 Maccabees 3:11, 25, 30; 6:41; 7:10; Isa 18:2; 39:1; Jer 36:1; Dan 4:37 [x2]). Of course, such an "argument" would be, to be blunt, stupid; the same applies for Ferguson's application of such against the Book of Mormon.

Other examples could be multiplied. The underlining Hebrew term is often סֵפֶר which refers to a "missive, document, writing, book" according to the Brown-Drivers-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon. Of course, using the "logic" of Ferguson, one could claim this disproves the Bible, as "letter" derives from an Old French word, letre(!) In reality, just as there is no problem with the Book of Mormon using the term “epistle” there is no problem with valid English translations to use the term “letter[s].”

Commenting on letters ("epistles" if you will) in the Old Testament, one scholar wrote the following:

Some references are to the official correspondence of royalty, for example, Huram (Hiram) of Tyre’s letter to Solomon written in connection with plans to build the temple in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 2:10 [v. 11 in English]), or public decrees. (These include, for example, Esth. 3:12, the edict to kill the Jews; 2 Chron. 30:1, Hezekiah’s invitation to celebrate the Passover in Jerusalem; Esth. 9:20-23, Mordecai’s letters to the Jews concerning the celebration of 14 Adar; see also 9:29, Esther’s letter, and Esth. 8:8; 8:5; 8:10; 1:19.) Some are accusatory; for example, Ezra 4:7-16, the letter written by Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and their comrades to King Artaxerxes to derail the returned exiles’ building projects, and the king’s response (Ezra 4:17-22). Such an accusatory letter relates to another genre of written communication, the lettre de cachet: the communiqué to place Uriah in the forefront of the battle (2 Sam. 11:14, 15); Jehu’s communiqué to the elders of Jezreel to dispatch with Ahab’s seventy sons (2 Kings 10:1, 6, 7); the false accusation against Naboth (1 Kings 21:8, 9). (See also Job 31:35; perhaps also Job 13:26.) Partaking of the interplay between oral and written discussed by Finnegan, Thomas, and others are texts such as Ezra 1:1 (2 Chron. 36:22) referring to a written edict of Cyrus that is also spread in the land orally by herald. Similarly, Elijah is said to engage in a long-distance form of prophecy, sending a letter to King Jehoram of Judah. This passage at 2 Chron. 21:12-15 is not represented in the Deuteronomistic corpus (see at 2 Kings 8). At 2 Chron. 32:17 Sennacherib is pictured to have written letters to “deride” God—letters that are read aloud as a public proclamation to frighten the Israelites. Here communiqué, curse text, oral and written merge.

It is worth noting that this intertwining of written and oral communication with special emphasis on the former is found particularly in postexilic material (see also the written agreement to the covenant discussed above [Neh. 10:1]). Indeed the vast majority of references to letters are late. Note, for example, that Hiram’s response to Solomon in the Deuteronomistic passage parallel to the story of the building of the temple in 2 Chronicles 2 does not introduce Hiram’s words of response with references to a letter or writing (1 Kings 5:1-22 [English vv. 7-8]; cf. 2 Chron. 2:10 [English v. 11]). The later writer of Chronicles frequently adds the accoutrements of a more literate mentality to the earlier version in the Deuteronomistic History. The epigraphic corpus offers many actual examples of letters from the period of the monarchy. One does not mean to imply that letters are a postexilic phenomenon or the like. Nevertheless, late biblical authors of Ezra-Nehemiah, 1 and 2 Chronicles, and Esther certainly refer to letters as recordlike documents on file, as proof for certain clams of reliability, or as testaments to the importance and factuality of certain decrees. (Susan Niditch, Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996], 90-91)

My friend, Stephen Smoot, offered the following comment which is rather apropos:

In Kamose's famous victory stela he quotes a letter ("a letter in writing" or šˁt sšw as he calls it) from the Hyksos king Aauserre to the Nubian king asking for support in the fight against the Egyptian Theban dynasty. That text is from ca. 1300 BC.

With respect to ancient Egypt, there are many letters, both addressed to the living and the dead, that date all the way back to the Old Kingdom period (ca. 2700-2170 BC). One such example is the following is a letter dating to the Sixth Dynasty of Egypt (ca. 2345-2181 BC). It is a protest to the Vizier from Saqqara. It was found within the Step Pyramid enclosure in 1925 and is now in Cairo, JE 49623:

(1) Year of the eleventh occasion, first month of the Shemu season, day 23. (2) The overseer of the expedition speaks:

(3) The letter of the vizier has been brought to this your servant, to effect that the division of troops of Tura should be brought (4) to the Western Enclosure so that they may be fitted with clothes in his presence. (However), this your servant protests at (such) unusual requests; for indeed the letter-carrier (5) is about to come to Tura with the (stone) barge, while your servant has to spend six days at the Residence (6) along with this division until it is clothed. It is (this) which gets in the way of your servant’s work, since but one day (7) needs to be wasted for the clothing of the division.

So speaks your servant. Inform the letter-carrier! (Nigel C. Strudwick, Texts from the Pyramid Age [Writing from the Ancient World; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005], 177)

There are many examples of letters from the Egyptian New Kingdom, too (16th-11th century BC). The following representative examples are taken from The Ancient Egyptians: A Sourcebook of Their Writings, ed. Adolf Erman (trans. William Kelly Simpson; New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1966)

[PURSUIT OF A RUNAWAY SLAVE.] (Pap. Anastasi, v. 19. 2 ff.)

 

The commandment of the Auxiliaries of Zeku, Kakemur, (writeth) to the Commandment of the Auxiliaries, Anii, and to the Commandment of the Auxiliaries, Bekenptah.

 

In life, prosperity, and health, and in the favour of Ammunrē, king of gods, and the Ka of King Sēthos II, our good lord.

 

I say to Rē-Karakhti: “Keep Pharaoh, our good lord, in health! Let him celebrate millions of jubilees, while we are daily in his favour.”

 

Furthermore: I was sent forth from the halls of the royal palace after these two slaves on the ninth day of the third month of Summer at the time of evening. And when I came on the tenth day of the third month of Summer to the castle (?) of Zeku, I was told that the news from the south was that they had gone past on the . . . th day of the third month of Summer. And when I came ot the fortress, I was told that the groom (?) had come form the desert (and had reported) that they had crossed the boundary north of the Migdol of Sēthos, who is . . . like Sēth.

 

When my letter reacheth you, write unto me about all that hath come to pass with you. Where were their tracks found? Which watch(?) found their tracks? What men pursued after them? Write unto me of all that was done about them, and how many men followed them.

 

Live ye happily! (pp. 198-99)

 

[REPROOF OF A HIGH OFFICIAL.] (Pap. Anastasi, iv. 10.8)

 

This royal decree is brought to thee.

 

What concern hast thou with the Tekten of the Oasis country, that thou hast sent forth this scribe of thine of thine to remove them from their Niau?

 

If now . . . Rē and Ptah suffer (us) not to hear aught respecting (?) these rumours (?) that one heareth, and this prince then writeth saying: “Thou art to bring hither the Tekten that can spy”—whither wilt thou (turn_? To whose hose wilt thou (go)? He cometh down on thine head like a sand dune. Thou art taken away and art placed there - - - -.

 

Even so is it with thine other very grace offence, which thou now committest: thou lettest Pharaoh come, in order to be take himself unto Heliopolis, without causing tools for the workshop to be brought as equipment behind thy lord - - - -.

 

Art thou not put in the place of other superintendents of the treasury, who abstained form removing a Tekten from his Niau, and only thou (doest this)?

 

When the decree of Pharaoh reacheth thee, thou art to write a letter to this scribe of thine, whom thou didst dispatch to the Oasis country, saying: “Beware! Abstain from taking away even one of the Tekten, or it will be accounted unto thee as a crime worthy of death.” And thou shalt hand over thy letter be a henchman of thine, and thou shalt dispatch him with the runner with all speed. (p. 203)

 

[LONGING FOR MEMPHIS.] (Pap. Anastasi, iv. 4. 11 ff.]

 

Behold, mine heart hath gone forth secretly. It hasteneth to a place that it knoweth; it voyageth downstream, that it may see Memphis - - - -.But I sit and wait for (a messenger), that he may tell me how Memphis fareth. I have no message, and mine heart leapeth in its place.

 

Come to me, Ptah, to take (me) tm Memphis, and let me view thee unhindered.

 

I spend the day with mine heart dreaming (?). Mine heart is not in my body, all my limbs - - - -, mine eye is weary with looking, mine ear is not . . ., my voice is . . ., so that it speaketh all manner of things pervertedly. Be gracious to me, and suffer (me?) to munt up (?) to them. (p. 205)

It should be rather obvious now that the charge that "epistle" in the Book of Mormon is an anachronism is just simply bogus.


Finally, and rather interestingly, the epistles in the Book of Mormon provide evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon as their forms and structure strongly mirror other ancient epistles from antiquity. For a discussion, see:


Robert F. Smith, Epistolary Form in the Book of Mormon