Wednesday, September 2, 2020

Jonathan Neville's Hatred of Proponents of a Mesoamerican Geography is Greater than his love for the gospel

 

Recently Daniel Peterson plugged a post on my blog:

 

An exceptionally stupid argument against the Restoration

 

Jonathan Neville (see the Neville-Neville Land blog for thorough refutations of Neville), has a recent blog post (attempting) to interact with Dan’s post, showing he has more contempt for Dan Peterson and other proponents of a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon than he has love for the Restored Gospel:

 

Exceptionally stupid? Current LDS apologetics

 

Why do I say this? Note the following from Neville:

 

Instead of ridiculing sincere objections and questions from those outside our faith, answer them accurately with equivalent sincerity and understanding.

 

This means that Neville honestly believes the following is a sincere question and objection to the faith:

 

Why did Smith’s three main witnesses, Cowdrey, Davis and Scales write the book, “Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? (Vision House Publishers, 1977)? Why did they leave the Mormon Church, even though they claimed to have seen Smith’s tablets?

 

Neville’s hatred of Dan Peterson et al is greater than any fidelity he has to the Gospel.

Tuesday, September 1, 2020

Willem A. VanGemeren on Psalm 110

 

Commenting on Psa 110:1 and the second lord, not being Adonai but adoni, Protestant Willem A. VanGemeren wrote:

 

1 In an oracular statement (“the Lord says”; cf. 36:1; Allen, 79: “Yahweh’s oracle”), the psalmist speaks of the promise of God pertaining to David and his dynasty. The promise pertains to the covenant between the Lord (adōnî) and the one in authority over the people of God, the Davidic king. His authority is by divine grant. The Davidic king is a theocratic ruler in the sense that he rules over God’s people under the Lord and yet is very close to him (cf. 1 Ch 28:5; 29:23; 2 Ch 9:8; Ps 45:6), at his right hand (cf. 1 Ki 2:19).

 

The authority belonging to the Davidic king is derived from the Lord. He promises to extend his dominion by subjugating the enemies. To make the enemies a “footstool” is an ancient Near Eastern metaphor for absolute control. Originally the victorious king placed his feet on the neck of his vanquished foe (cf. Jos 10:24; 1 Ki 5:3; Isa 51:23). From this practice arose the idiom of making one’s enemy one’s footstool. In Psalm 2 the Lord also promises full authority over the earth to the Davidic king (vv. 8–9), and Paul alludes to this promise when speaking about Jesus’ authority as the Messiah of God (1 Co 15:25). The promise is further developed in the victorious and eschatological language of Psalm 110:2–3, 5–7.

Notes

For a discussion of the technical words and phrases in the superscription, see Introduction, pp. 62–67.

 

1 The MT uses the phrase אֲדֹנִי (ʾadōnî, “my master”) to denote the lord-vassal relationship between the king and his people (cf. 1 Sa 22:12; 26:18; 1 Ki 1:13; 18:7), whereas the usual reference to deity is אֲדוֹנָי (ʾadōnāy, “Lord” or “my Lord”). (Willem A. VanGemeren, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Volume 5: Psalms [rev ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2008], 5814)

 

Elsewhere, commenting on vv. 5-6 where Adonai is at the right hand of the king, he notes:

 

5–6 When the king goes out to war, “the Lord” (ʾadōnāy), as the Master of the universe, supports him by being at his right hand (v. 5; cf. 16:8; 109:31; 121:5). He will further the king’s power by crushing the resistance of kings. There is a day of accountability appointed, and that day will be a time of vindication (“the day of his wrath”; cf. 2:5, 12; 21:9; Isa 13:9, 13; Zep 2:3). On that day the Lord will “judge the nations” (v. 6; cf. 2:9; 7:8; 9:8; 76:9; Rev 19:11–21), thus causing great defeat for the inimical nations—a defeat symbolized by their “corpses” and “heads” (rōʾš; NIV, “the rulers”). (Ibid., 5816–817)

 

Finally, on the Davidic King (not just the then-future Messiah!) being a priest “after the order of Melchizedek,” he noted the following about v. 4:

 

The irrevocable oath is none other than what the Lord has promised to David pertaining to his dynasty (2 Sa 7:13; Pss 89:3, 28–29, 34–35; 132:11). David had shown a deep concern for the Lord’s dwelling place; and with the divine appointment of Jerusalem as the focal point of his earthly rule, the Lord made great promises to David (see 132:13–18). Here the Davidic king serves as God’s priest “in the order of Melchizedek” (see M. J. Paul, “The Order of Melchizedek [Ps 110:4 and Heb 7:3],” WTJ 49 [1987]: 195–211). Melchizedek was a priest-king over Jerusalem (cf. Ge 14:18) and worshiped the Creator-God as the supreme deity (El Elyon). The Davidic king is after the order of Melchizedek only in so far as the sacerdotal kingship is concerned. He is charged with responsibility over the true worship of the Lord. For a prophetic vision of the glorious union of the Messiah-Priest, see Zechariah 6:13; for the NT application, see Hebrews 5:6–10; 7:22. (Ibid., 5816)

 

Monday, August 31, 2020

Stephen Smoot on B.H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon

 B.H. Roberts (1857-1933) is one of my favourite LDS theologians. His The Truth, The Way, The Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology is one of my favourite works on theology, and I try to recommend it to people whenever I get a chance. Book of Mormon Central's Archive has a PDF of the book one can download here.


My friend, Stephen Smoot, has two recent blog posts addressing B.H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon in response to the recent nonsense proliferated by Shannon C. Montez:


B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon: Exhumation and Reburial


and


B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon: An Addendum


If Montez has proven anything, it is not that Roberts lost his faith in the Book of Mormon; it is that she is a joke of a "scholar."

Kevin L. Barney, "Baptized for the Dead"

 The Interpreter Foundation has just posted, as part of their book chapter reprint series, the following article from Kevin L. Barney on baptism for the dead and 1 Cor 15:29:


Baptized for the Dead (PDF)


It originally appeared in the book, “To Seek the Law of the Lord”: Essays in Honor of John W. Welch (2017).

Figures 22 and 23 of the Hypocephalus

 




While he has gone far into left field these days, Kerry Shirts did produce a lot of interesting material on the Book of Abraham. One such article I recently re-read was the following which I am reproducing here as it presents an interesting discussion of figures 22 and 23 in the hypocephalus (pictured above):

 

Book of Abraham, Facsimile 2, Figs. 22, 23 Egyptian Correlations - The Apes Are Stars

Research by Kerry A. Shirts

Joseph Smith gave us a facsimile in the BofA, # 2, the hypocephalus with various interpretations of some of the figures. Joseph Smith never interpreted or translated the rim of the hypocephalus, hence the critics reasoning that Smith was deceiving us by putting some of the writing of the papyri he had in his possession in the rim of the incomplete hypocephalus just isn't relevant. No Mormon scholars among us have ever said differently. Why the restoration of the looks of the thing has to be deceptive is beyond me. What is wrong with the idea that perhaps Hedlock wanted the hypocephalus to look more complete? Now had Smith translated the rim and said what it translated out to be, and if it then was shown that his translation was wrong and based on part of the upside down text, now that would be deceptive. But Joseph Smith, again, I repeat, never translated the rim of the thing. How is this deception?

But there is one figure, among many, which I have been looking into a bit and find Joseph Smith was quite astonishing with his interpretation of, which is the two apes in the center panel, labelled as numbers 22, and 23. Here Joseph Smith's explanations of the apes are "stars." How on earth a monkey, babboon, ape, can be said to represent stars is incredible. Is there any writings or indications that Smith could have gotten this weird explanation from somewhere contemporaneously? Yet this idea fits very snugly and comfortably in the Egyptian state of affairs, to be sure.

Hans Bonnet in his "Reallexicon der Agyptischen Religionsgeschichte" notes some interesting things about these apes, from the Egyptian side of things. The apes can represent Thoth, the god of writing (Sie ist dem Thot sonderlich zu eigen wenn er in der Rolle eines Schutzgottes der Schreiber und des Schreibwesens erscheint, p. 7).

Bonnet explains something else interesting in light of what Joseph Smith said about the central panel, or Fig. 1 in the hypocephalus. Bonnet tells us that Horapollo explains that the apes, during the equinox (wahrend der Aquinoktien), urinates hourly, as a sort of measure of time (allstundlich zu urinieren, p. 7). Joseph Smith explains that the central panel in which the apes reside is directly involved with celestial time, and the measure of time (Fac. 2, fig. 1). This is very Egyptian to be sure.

Bonnet also explains that the apes have a strong relationship with the heavenly bodies (grossen Gestirnen), specifically, the Sun, as they raise their front paws to the rising sun in worship (die das Gestirn mit erhobenen Vorderpfoten betend begrussen - p. 7)

And what's more, Bonnet notes that along with the sun, the stars the apes are also associated with or through Thoth as the moon also (Note: the apes in Smith's hypocephalus have the moondiscs - "mondscheibe" - on their heads). "Tatsachlich ist der Affes erst durch Thot zum Mondtier gewroden. Auf diese Eigenschaft deutet die Mond- scheibe, die er vielfach als Kopfputz tragt." p. 8).

So we have the sun, moon, and stars, as also the measurement of time, exactly as with the heavenly bodies and measurement of time in Joseph Smith's explanations.

Alan Gardiner notes that Thoth is the god of writing and mathematics as well. ("Egyptin Grammar", p. 113). Note that in Smith's explanation we have the idea of "The measurement according to celestial time, which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit." Note the application of mathematics and inter-reaction with time. Lewis Spence in his book "Egypt" says: "He [Thoth] is called the 'great god' and 'lord of heaven' [note that Bonnet says of him that he is the old Babboon-god, the "Hez-ur, the "Great White" - "Dagegen horen wir von einem alten Paviensgott der Hez-ur, der grosse Weisse, gennant wird." p. 7], and that in his role as a lunar god, Thoth was considered "the measurer", (Spence, p. 107). He is the "Great White" of Bonnet's description because the full moon is very large and very white in the sky (Spence, p. 107).

Thoth as "Tehuti" is the scribe of the gods (E.A.W. Budge, "Hieroglyphic Vocabulary to the Book of the Dead", p. 447, Cf. Karl-Theodor Zauzich - "Hieroglyphen Ohne Geheimnis", tr. Ann Macy Roth, p. 94). Thoth was the creator of hieroglyphs according to some accounts, who is also shown in scenes of 'Weighing of the heart' making a written record of the judgment of the deceased, as in the temple of Ramesses II at Abydos, where we read "For recitation by Thoth, Lord of Khmunu (Hermopolis), the scribe..." (Hilary Wilson, "Understanding Hieroglyphs," 1995, p. 96f, Cf. Margaret Bunson, "The Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt," p. 264).

In Egypt, it is Thoth (Hermes to the Greeks, Mercury to the Romans) who is the Master of the City of Eight. Thoth gives man access to the mysteries of the manifested world, which is symbolized by eight. (Anthony West, "Serpent in the Sky", p. 51). While in the Joseph Smith hypocephalus there are only two babboons, in other hypocephali there are sometimes 2, sometimes, 4, sometimes 6, and sometimes 8. Eight babboons can also be seen on the Metternicht Stelae. Adolf Erman notes that the town of eight was named after the eight elementary beings of the world, whose chief god was Thoth, the god of wisdom (Erman, "Aegypten", tr. Helen Tirard, "Life In Ancient Egypt", p. 24).

That Joseph Smith was depicting an ancient Egyptian hypocephalus correctly with many of the figures is incredible, considering that Egyptian was not yet known in the 1830's when Joseph Smith received the Egyptian antiquities from the antiquities dealer. How on earth would anyone guess haphazardly that apes could represent stars, and other heavenly bodies, and dealt with astronomy, measurement of time, etc.? I believe it shows the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.

 

 



Friday, August 28, 2020

Brigham Young on Adam being Created in the Image of God two days before his first "Adam-God" Sermon

 

 

This reminds me of a little circumstance that transpired here a year ago last summer. You, no doubt, well recollect Elder Day, (a Baptist minister on his way to California,) who used to preach to us so nicely. I preached one day when he was present. In the course of my remarks, I brought up the subject of the Deity—at the point touching the character of our Father in heaven, upon which he desired the most to be instructed. I dropped the subject and turned to something else. He went to dinner with me, and while we sat at the dinner table, he said, "Brother Young, I was waiting with all my anxious heart, with mouth, eyes, and ears open to receive something great and glorious." "What about, brother Day?" "Why, as you were describing the Deity, and just came to the point I was the most anxious to have expounded, behold you waived it and turned to something else." I smiled and said, "After I had taught them how, I wanted the people to add the rest of the sermon themselves." He said, "I declare, brother Young, I would have given anything I possessed in the world, if you had continued your remarks until I had obtained the knowledge I desired." I inquired the nature of it. "To know the character of God." I smiled and said, "Are you a preacher of the Gospel?" "Yes." "How long have you been a preacher?" "Twenty-seven years I have been a preacher of the Gospel of Christ." "And you have been a minister so long, and have never learned anything about the character of the Being about whom you have been preaching! I am astonished! Now you want to find out the character of God. I can make you answer the question yourself in a few minutes." "Well, I do not know, brother Young: it is a very mysterious subject to mortal man." "Now, let me ask you a single question. Will you tell me what God our. Father in heaven appears like?" He sat a considerable time, while the colour on his cheeks ebbed and flowed alternately, till at last he replied, "Brother Young, I will not presume to describe the character of the Deity." I smiled, and he thought I was treating the subject lightly. "I am not making light of the subject, but I am smiling at your folly, that you—a teacher in Israel—a man who should stand between the living and the dead—yet know nothing about your Father and God. Were I in your place, I would never preach another sermon while I lived, until I learned more about God. Do you believe the Bible?" "I do." "What resemblance did our father Adam bear to his God, when he placed him in the Garden of Eden?" Before he had time to reply, I asked him what resemblance Jesus bore to man in his incarnation? and "Do you believe Moses, who said the Lord made Adam in his own image and after his own likeness? This may appear to you a curiosity; but do you not see, bona fide, that the Lord made Adam like himself; and the Saviour we read of was made to look so like him, that he was the express image of his person ?" He laughed at his folly himself. "Why," said he, "Brother Young, I never once thought of it before in all my life, and I have been a preacher twenty-seven years." He never had known anything about the character of the God he worshipped; but, like the Athenians, had raised an altar with the inscription, "To the unknown God." (JOD 6:317-18 | April 7, 1852 [note: this sermon was just 2 days before the first "Adam-God" sermon--cf. JOD 1:50-51])

 

 

Matthew Thiessen on Demons and Demon Possession in the Pre-Exilic Era

  

Demons in the Ancient Near East

 

As Milgrom notes, Israel’s neighbors had a robust demonology. One of the most important demonological works, the sixteen-tablet book known as Udug-hul (Evil Demons), shows how early and widespread was the belief that the demonic world could possess people. This work contains materials dating from the Old Akkadian (2300-2200 BCE) to the Seleucid period (300-200 BCE), thus demonstrating the long-standing fears that many people in the ancient Near East had of the demonic. For instance, one apotropaic text from the composite work states,

 

Do [not say, “let me] stand [at the side].”
[Go] out, [evil Udug-demon,] to [a distant place],
[go] away, [evil Ala-demon], to [the desert]. (Udug-hul 8.73-75)

 

Here we see, like in Leviticus 16, the association between the demonic and the wilderness, as well as a spell to exorcise the demonic presence. Another text portrays the possession of a man and the rite needed to remove the demon from the man’s body:

 

Go, my son, Asalluhi,
Pour water in an anzam-cup,
And put in it tamarisk and the innuš-plant.
(He cited the Eridu [incantation]). Calm the patient, and bring out the censer
and torch for him,
so that the Namtar demon existing in a man’s body may depart from it. (Udug-hul 7.669-74)

 

Yet another illuminating text describes the nature of the demonic in the following terms:

 

Neither males are they, nor females,
They are winds ever sweeping along,
They have not wives, engender not children,
Know not how to show mercy,
Hear not prayer and supplication. (Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 16, plates 15, v. 37-46) (Matthew Thiessen, Jesus and the Forces of Death: The Gospels’ Portrayal of Ritual Impurity within First-Century Judaism [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2020], 127)

 

 

 

Blog Archive