Wayne Horowitz on the Nature of the Heavens in Ancient Mesopotamian Thought

Although the clear sky seems to us to be shaped like a dome, rather than a flat circle, there is no direct evidence that ancient Mesopotamians thought the visible heavens to be a dome. Akkadian kippatu are always flat, circular objects such as geometric circles or hoops, rather than three dimensional domes. Nonetheless, evidence for dome-shaped, or curved, heavens may be found in the ziqpu-star text BM 38693+, the blessing formula STT 340:12, and AO 6478, where the Path of Enlil is 364° long. All three imply that the Path of Enlil, at least, is a curved band that encircles the earth's surface (see p. 258). However, this does not prove that the surface of heaven is curved, since stars need not have necessarily traveled along the surface of the sky. 30 There is also no direct evidence for the shape of the high unseen heavens, although it is likely that these levels too were thought to be circles. A cryptic reference to the possible circular shape of the Heaven of Anu may be found in a šu.fla where the Heaven of Anu is identified with a nignakku 'censer' (Ebeling Handerhebung 14:16). Censers were flat, round objects. (Wayne Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography [Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1998], 264-65)

Robert Sungenis, The Flat Earth Frenzy: Unscientific and Unbiblical

If one pursues youtube these days, one will find a number of videos advocating the flat earth theory. As there has been a sort of resurgence in this nonsense theory, there have been a number of debates and discussions on this issue. The Non Sequitur youtube page has hosted a number of them.

Robert Sungenis, a Catholic apologist who shares many of the assumptions (*) of many flat earthers (e.g., young earth creationism; geocentrism [some, not all, flat earthers hold to a stationary earth as Sungenis does]) has  an 800-page book that will be coming out soon, Flat Earth, Flat Wrong: An Historical, Biblical and Scientific Analysis. Additionally, on his Website, Sungenis has a 39 page paper refuting this movement:

The Flat Earth Frenzy: Unscientific and Unbiblical

(*) I do not share any of these; for example, I accept macro-evolution and an old earth.

The Sacrament and the Promise of God's Spirit (Moroni 4:3; 5:2)

Commenting on the promise that, by partaking of the emblems of the Sacrament (Eucharist/Lord’s Supper), we may have God’s Spirit to be with us, Fielding McConkie, Millet, and Top noted the following:

4:3 (5:2). That they may always have his Spirit to be with them] One’s faithfulness to the covenants made in baptism and renewed with worthy partaking of the sacrament binds the Lord to his part of the covenant agreement. He has promised that we may have the influence of the Holy Ghost as a constant companion. There are many significant spiritual fruits that come to us as the Lord fulfills this promise to us. The Holy Ghost is a sanctifier, and as a result we are forgiven of our sins and cleansed by the Holy Spirit through worthy partaking of the sacrament. “If we have done wrong; if there is a feeling in our souls that we would like to be forgiven,” Elder Melvin J. Ballard declared, “then the method to obtain forgiveness is not through rebaptism; it is not to make confession to man; but it is to repent of our sins, to go to those against whom we have sinned or transgressed and obtain their forgiveness, and the repair to the sacrament table where, if we have sincerely repented and put ourselves in proper condition, we shall be forgiven, and spiritual healing will come to our souls. It will really enter into our being.” (Improvement Era, October 1919, pp. 1026-27).

In addition to the cleansing from sin and the spiritual healing that comes by the Holy Ghost, having the Spirit with us yields other great blessings. If we are true to our covenants, the Spirit helps us to speak with power (see D&C 88:137), brings things to our remembrance (see John 14:26), gives us peace and joy (see Galatians 5:22), teaches and testifies of eternal truths (see John 14:26; Moroni 10:5), opens up revelations to our minds (see Alma 5:46), shows us all things that we should do (see 2 Nephi 32:5), strengthens body, mind and spirit (see Romans 8:26), comforts us in times of sorrow (see Acts 9:31), unfolds to us the mysteries of the kingdom (see 1 Nephi 10:19), and beings us many other spiritual blessings. Mortal minds cannot fully comprehend and words cannot fully explain what great things can come to us if we partake worthily of the sacrament and merit the Lord’s promise to have his Spirit with us always. (Joseph Fielding McConkie, Robert L. Millet, and Brent L. Top, Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, volume 4: Third Nephi Through Moroni [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2007], 327)

Acts 8:14 vs. Vatican I on the Nature of Peter's Supremacy

Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. (Acts 8:14, NRSV)

This is an important text for those who interact with Roman Catholics, especially on the authority of Peter and how it relates to the later dogmatic teachings of Catholicism thereof. Why? According to Vatican I, after the resurrection, a singularly unique authority was bestowed upon the person of Peter and he was the chief apostle, not a “first among equals” as Latter-day Saints and others would accept. Notwithstanding, this text shows that Peter was not the supreme leader of the Church; instead, he held a subordinate authority to that of the rest of the apostolic band as they send him to Samaria, showing a functional subordination of Peter to the rest of the apostles. As Joseph Fitzmyer notes:

they sent Peter and John to the people there. Peter and John are sent by “the apostles,” i.e., the Twelve; they are thus the emissaries of the apostles. The verb apostellein is used, implying an official mission, as Jesus “sent” the Twelve and other disciples out on missions (Luke 9:2; 10:1). As earlier (Acts 3:1-11; 4:13, 19), John is Peter’s silent partner. (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 31; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1998], 405)

This is in stark contrast to the dogmatic teachings of Catholicism. As Pastor Aeternus (1870) dogmatically stated:

WE therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of GOD was immediately and directly promised and given to Blessed Peter the Apostle by CHRIST the LORD For it was to Simon alone, to whom He had already said: “Thou shalt be called Cephas,” that the LORD, after the confession made by him, saying, “Thou art the CHRIST, the Son of the living GOD,” addressed these solemn words, “Blessed art thou, Simon, Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but My Father, who is in heaven. And I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” And it was upon Simon alone that JESUS after His resurrection bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all His fold in the words, “Feed My lambs, feed My sheep.” At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture, as it has ever been understood by the Catholic Church, are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by CHIRST the LORD in His Church, deny that Peter in his simple person preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by CHRIST with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister.

If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant, or that the same directly and immediately received from the same our LORD JESUS CHRIST a primacy of honour only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction; let him be anathema. (The Decrees of the Vatican Council [ed. Vincent McNabb; New York: Benzinger Brothers, 1907], 36-38)

Roper and Fields, Abinadi to Zenos: 28 Speakers in the Book of Mormon

Book of Mormon Central just posted this video from their 2018 Conference by Matthew Roper and Paul Fields:

Abinadi to Zenos: 28 Speakers in the Book of Mormon

Roper and Fields have written a number of important articles on Stylometric analyses of the Book of Mormon, such as:

Examining a Misapplication of Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification to Investigate Book of Mormon Authorship (with G. Bruce Schaalje)

The Historical Case against Sidney Rigdon's Authorship of the Book of Mormon

Did Joseph Smith Get The Book Of Abraham Cosmology From ‘Philosophy Of A Future State’?

On the Conflict of Justice blog (which I only came across today), there is a great article debunking a claim one finds in works such as Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows My History and the CES Letter, namely, that Thomas Dick influenced Joseph Smith's theology:

Did Joseph Smith Get The Book Of Abraham Cosmology From ‘Philosophy Of A Future State’?

One should also pursue Edward (Ted) Jones' M.A. thesis examining this issue, too:

Ted Jones, The Theology of Tomas Dick and Its Possible Relationship to that of Joseph Smith (M.A. Thesis, BYU Provo, 1969)

The High Mariology in the work of Anne Catherine Emmerich

Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824 ) was a Catholic mystic whose visions, as found in The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, strongly influenced Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. I came across another work by Emmerich in a bookstore here in Tralee:

The Saint of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Volume IV (Charlotte, N.C.: Saint Benedict Press, 2006)

As with so many works of this kind, the Mariology is very high (read: blasphemous), and is reflective of the piety one finds in both historical and modern Catholic works. Here are just some excerpts portraying Mary as co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix (a major theme of the Mariology in Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, largely due to Emmerich’s visions) and other like-teachings:

The Blessed Virgin, united in constant, interior compassion with Jesus, knew and experienced in her soul all that happened to Him. She suffered everything with Him in spiritual contemplation, and like Him she was absorbed in continual prayer for His executioners. (p. 161)

Mary During the Scourging of Jesus

I saw the Blessed Virgin, during the scouring of our Redeemer, in a state of uninterrupted ecstasy. She saw and suffered in an indescribable manner all that her Son was enduring. Her punishment, her martyrdom, was an inconceivably great as her most holy love. Low moans frequently burst from her lips, and her eyes were inflamed with weeping . . . Mary saw her lacerated Son driven past her by the executioners. With His garment He wiped the blood from His eyes in order to see His Mother. She raised her hands in agony toward Him and gazed upon His bloodstained footprints. Then, as the mob moved over to another side, I saw the Blessed Virgin and Magdalen approaching the place of scourging. Surrounded and hidden by the other holy women and some well-disposed people standing by, they cast themselves on their knees and soaked up the sacred Blood of Jesus with the linens until not a trace of it could be found. (pp. 211, 212)

The Blessed Mother of Jesus, who shared every suffering of her Son, had about an hour previously—when the unjust sentence was pronounced upon Him—left the forum with John and the holy women to venerate the places consecrated by His cruel Passion. But now when the running crowd, the sounding trumpets, and the approach of the soldiers and Pilate’s cavalcade accounted the commencement of the bitter. Way of the Cross, Mary would no longer remain at a distance. She must behold her Divine Son in His sufferings, and she begged John to take her to some place what Jesus would pass. (p. 246)

The sufferings of the most afflicted Mother of Sorrows on this journey, at the sight of the place of execution and her ascent to it, cannot be expressed. They were twofold: the pains of Jesus suffered interiorly and the sense of being left behind. (p. 263)

The Mother of Jesus, Mary Cleophas, Mary Magdalen, and John were standing around Jesus’ cross, between it and those of the thieves, and looking up at the Lord. The Blessed Virgin, overcome by maternal love, was in her heart fervently imploring Jesus to let her die with him. At that moment, the Lord cast an earnest and compassionate glance down upon His Mother and, turning His eyes toward John, said to her: “Woman, behold this is thy son! He will be thy son more truly than if thou hadst given him birth” Then He praised John, and said: “He has always been innocent and full of simple faith. He was never scandalized, excepting when his mother wanted to have him elevated to a high position.” To John, He said: “Behold, this is thy Mother!” and John reverently and like a filial son embraced beneath the cross of the dying Redeemer Jesus’ Mother, who had now become his Mother also. After this solemn bequest of her dying son, the Blessed Virgin was so deeply affected by her own sorrow and the gravity of the scene that the holy women, supporting her in their arms, seated her for a few moments on the earthen rampart opposite the cross and then took her away from the circle to the rest of the holy women . . . on such an occasion one is not at all surprised to hear Jesus addressing the Blessed Virgin, not as “Mother,” but as “Woman”; for one feels that in this hour in which, by the sacrificial death of the Son of Man, her own Son, the Promise was realized. Mary stood in her dignity as the Woman who was to crush the serpent’s head. (pp. 284-85)

The Majesty and Dignity of the Blessed Virgin

On the evening of the following day, I saw the Apostles and twenty of the disciples in the hall at prayer under the lamp. The Blessed Virgin, all the holy women, Lazarus, Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and Obed were present. The prayer over, John addressed the Apostles, and Peter, the disciples. They spoke in words full of mystery of their relations to the Mother of the Lord and what she should be to them. During this instruction of the two Apostles, which they based on a communication received from Jesus. I saw the Blessed Virgin hovering over the assembly in a shining, outspread mantle whose folds embraced them all, and on her head descended a crown from the Most Holy Trinity through the open heavens above her. I no longer saw her kneeling outside the hall in prayer, and I had the conviction that Mary was the legitimate head of them all, the temple that enclosed them all. I think this vision was symbolical of what God designed to take place for the Church at this moment through the exposition of the Apostles upon Mary’s dignity. (pp. 410-11)

Such a distorted view of Mary and such piety is to be rejected and should not be avoided for the sake of “theological ecumenism” and/or “just getting along.”

For a scholarly discussion of true, biblical Mariology, see my book-length treatment of the issue:

Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology (2017)