FAIR - User contributions [en]

Question: Do Mormons use 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 as a "proof text" to support the Three Degress of Glory?

2013-09-20T21:42:40Z

BenSpackman: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
=Is 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 used as a "proof text" by Latter-day Saints?=
=={{Criticism label}}==
Critics claim that 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 is used as a "proof text" to support the three degrees of glory: "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such a one caught up to the third heaven..."

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==
{{nw}}

== ==
{{Response label}}
Critics use a circular assumption that Latter-day Saints are basing our doctrines upon passages like this, rather than teaching doctrine from the scriptures, which is not quite the same thing. They then skim lightly over the scholarly tradition of Jews in a rather evasive way with the claim:
<blockquote>
Using these passages to validate the idea of three kingdoms making up heaven ignores the Jewish tradition Paul would have known. According to that tradition, paradise was the abode of God, the place of eternal joy for God's people. However, Jewish custom never viewed a first or second heaven as alternative eternal destinations. Rather, these referred to the atmospheric heaven (the sky) and the galactic heaven (the universe). {{ref|101.172}}
</blockquote>
If this sounds remarkably modern, it's because it is. It turns out not to be Jewish at all: their reference is to the eighteenth-century Enlightenment-era Protestant commentator Matthew Henry, who writes:
<blockquote>
It was certainly a very extraordinary honour done him: in some sense he was caught up into the third heaven, the heaven of the blessed, above the aerial heaven, in which the fowls fly, above the starry heaven, which is adorned with those glorious orbs: it was into the third heaven, where God most eminently manifests His glory. {{ref|henry}}
</blockquote>

Before we examine the Jewish custom that Paul would have been exposed to (obviously not Matthew Henry's commentary), we should point out that even Protestant views about what the "third heaven" is are all over the theological map. According to Ronald R. Day, of "Restoration Light," {{ref|protestant}} the first world and heaven were the pre-Flood universe, the second world and heaven are the ones we live in now, and the third world and heaven are yet to come after Christ's second coming. {{ref|thirdheaven}}

While it is true that many conservative Protestant groups accept this modern, anachronistic view of Matthew Henry's of an atmospheric heaven, a stellar heaven, and a divine Heaven, not all Protestants believe this is the only possible interpretation. A question-and-answer session on the Website of a relatively liberal non-denominational church known as The Rock shows that many Protestants are acquainted with the genuinely ancient traditions, as given in pseudepigraphal works such as the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Testament of Levi, to the effect that there was a kind of hierarchy of spiritual heavens. {{ref|thirdheaven2}} The New Testament pseudepigraphal work The Apocalypse of Paul also has this tradition. (See below for specific quotations.)

Glass admits that whereas "Some of the noncanonical writings give detailed descriptions of multiple heavens, up to seven more more [,] Paul was not necessarily thinking of these when he wrote of his mystical transport into the third Heaven (2 Cor. 12.2); an alternate explanation is that the expression indicates a high degree of spiritual exaltation." {{ref|glasson}} So we can take our pick: either ancient Jews believed in a hierarchical series of heavens, and a visionary trip through them was a common theme of Jewish (and even Christian) apocalyptic writings, or Paul was using the "third heaven" as the epitome of the highest degree of exaltation-exactly as Latter-day Saints would put it.

In any case, regarding the atmospheric model espoused by Matthew Henry, while some Greeks believed in a variant of this (such as Pythagoras and others), ancient Jews believed no such thing. Did the modern, anachronistic Biblicist view come from a neo-Hellenistic (early post-Christian era Greek philosophies) source, as so much of modern creedal Christian doctrines have, or is this just a coincidence? That's a subject for further study, and outside the scope of this review.

{{SeeAlso|Plan of salvation/Three degrees of glory/History of the belief in a three-part heaven|l1=History of the belief in a three-part heaven}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|101.172}}Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2001), 172.
#{{note|henry}}Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry's Commentary of the Whole Bible (McLean, Virginia: MacDonald Publishing Co., 1706), 6:641.
#{{note|protestant}}A conservative Protestant denomination, and no friend to Latter-day Saints: see http://reslight.addr.com/
#{{note|thirdheaven}}http://reslight.addr.com/thirdheaven.html {{nw}} broken link
#{{note|thirdheaven2}}http://www.rockinauburn.com/columns/thirdheaven.htm {{nw}} broken link
#{{note|glasson}}Thomas Francis Glasson, "Heaven," Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993), 271.
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Bible/Three degrees of glory not biblical/2 Corinthians 12:2-4]]

Question: Is 1 Corinthians 15:40 used as a "proof text" by Latter-day Saints to support the Three Degress of Glory?

2013-09-20T21:37:54Z

BenSpackman: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{draft}}

=Is 1 Corinthians 15:40 used as a "proof text" by Latter-day Saints?=
=={{Criticism label}}==
Critics claim that Latter-day Saints use as a "proof text" 1 Corinthians 15:40, "There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial...". They say that in light of verse 41, where Paul makes the comparison between the light of the sun, the moon and the stars as a simile for the difference in glories between the three kingdoms, that "many scholars believe that Paul was referring to heavenly bodies such as the moon, sun, and stars."

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==
{{nw}}

== ==
{{Response label}}
Well, yes—that is the whole point of a simile. If one were to say "my true love's eyes are like almonds," one is not writing an agronomy treatise, but, yes, one is referring to almonds. Paul's analogy works like this: "There are A, B, and C...so too is the resurrection of the dead (verse 42)"—a classic simile.

There is plenty of scholarly support for a resurrection of varying degrees of glory. Orr and Walther even title the section of their commentary on this section "Analogies," and write,
<blockquote>
Like Immanuel Kant, Paul transfers his vision from the earth to the sky and points out that the myriad bodies there differ from each other and from the earth. Presumably he has in mind that the heavenly bodies shine with their own light while the earthly ones have only reflected light. {{ref|comment1}} He gives no further indication of his astronomical thought, and obviously his data are critically limited. Since his express purpose is only to show that many possibilities are open in the realm of reality, his analogy provides a valid illustration. {{ref|orr}}
</blockquote>
Likewise Thiselton, pointing out a switch in language which will resonate with Latter-day Saints' understanding of the difference between "body" in a purely physical sense (Greek sarx) and "soul" in the sense of body and spirit (Greek sóma):
<blockquote>
The shift from [sarx; physical body] (v. 39) to [soma; soul] (v. 40) is marked by the introduction of of [doxa; glory or splendour] and the allusion to bodies that are super-earthly. Whereas flesh had emphasized the diversity of the 'stuff' of creation, body now calls attention to diversities of form and character. In Calvin's words, the comparison of v. 39 serve the same purpose as those of vv. 37-38 but add the implication that 'whatever diversity we perceive in any particular kind (in quoqua specie) is a sort of foreshadowing of the resurrection....' Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ambrosiaster, and Augustine construe vv. 39 and 40 as clearly anticipating the distinctions supposedly implied by v. 41b, i.e., differences in 'honor' even between individual believers at the resurrection, but this goes beyond the explicit sense of these verses. Tertullian, too, sees Paul's argument here (vv. 39-40) as a decisive logical repudiation of Marcion's wish to substitute a notion of the soul's immortality for bodily resurrection: 'Does he not guarantee that the resurrection shall be accomplished by that God from whom proceed all the examples,' i.e., of diversity within creation and of transformation. Tertullian rightly places the emphasis upon God and God's's [sic] resourcefulness as Creator as the ground of this faith. {{ref|thiselton1}}
</blockquote>
Incidentally, Thiselton goes on to consider the argument that McKeever and Johnson apparently refer to, that Paul is referring simply to the fact that the resurrected will dwell with God in the heavenly regions (in a cosmological sense), but dismiss it on the grounds that the word Paul uses to translate "body" when he refers to resurrected bodies-and his distinction is clear and consistent-is "soma," a word not applicable to a mere physical body like a planet or star:
<blockquote>
However, some interpreters object that Paul would not use [sóma] of an impersonal entity, and that to apply this to astronomical 'bodies' either imports a modern meaning of [sóma]or presupposes a view of astral bodies as quasi-personal, as reflected in some non-Christian first-century religions. Meyer and Findlay, among others, argue this forcefully, insisting that Paul alludes to bodies of angels in v. 40, appealing to supposed parallels in Matt 22:10 and Luke 20:36. {{ref|thiselton2}}
</blockquote>
Thus does this eminent Protestant scholar consign the critics' defense to the scrap heap of heresy, even within Protestantism's definition of heresy.

This leaves one possible gap, which, mind you, the critics in this case don't even try to exploit, but for the sake of completeness, and also because the reference deals with their weak parenthetical attempt to link "terrestrial bodies" to the "flesh of men, beasts, fishes, and birds," we'll consider it here. This whole passage in 1 Corinthians 15 talks about the resurrection, specifically, not necessarily about Heaven, per se. However, Paul is talking about the future in a general, soteriological sense (the process of salvation as a whole), and is using the resurrection as the première, or epitome for the whole post-earthly experience. Thiselton explains that Paul's sermon is not to be taken in a strictly time-related locative way (located at a specific point in time):

On the other hand, the three pairs of contrasts-decay and its absence or reversal, humiliation and splendor, and an ordinary human body and a body constituted by the Spirit-give solid ground for conceiving of the postresurrection made of life as a purposive and dynamic crescendo of life, since the living God who acts purposively decrees this fitting mode, rather than envisaging some static ending in which the raised body is forever trapped, as if in the last 'frozen' frame of a film or movie. In the biblical writings the Spirit is closely associated with ongoing vitality, which Paul takes up in v. 45b...

The one necessary exegetical caveat is to note that realm of the Spirit (i.e., [pneumatikon; "spirit-directed"] does not mean primarily the nonphysical realm (although it certainly includes this), but what befits the transformation of character or pattern of existence effected by the Holy Spirit. Here the biological analogies of transforming a bare seed or grain into fruit, flower, or harvest may take on an aesthetic dimension for illustrative purposes to underline (a) contrast; (b) continuity of identity; and (c) full and radical transformation of form and character. {{ref|thiselton3}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|comment1}}This is an excellent summary of the LDS view of exaltation versus salvation in lesser kingdoms, incidentally.
#{{note|orr}}William F. Orr and James Arthur Walther, I Corinthians. Anchor Bible, Vol. 32 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1976), 346.
#{{note|thiselton1}}Anthony C. Thiselton, The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids. Michigan and Carlisle, United Kingdom: Eerdmans / Paternoster, 2000), 1267-1268.
#{{note|thiselton2}}Thiselton, New International Greek Testament Commentary, 1268.
#{{note|thiselton3}}Thiselton, New International Greek Testament Commentary, 1279-1280.
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Bible/Three degrees of glory not biblical/1 Corinthians 15:40]]

Mormonism and the nature of God/Elohim and Jehovah

2009-12-09T17:16:02Z

BenSpackman:

{{GodPortal}}

==Criticism==
Some critics assert that ''Elohim'', ''Jehovah'', ''Adonai'' and other similar Old Testament Hebrew names for deity are simply different titles which emphasize different attributes of the "one true God." In support of this criticism, they cite Old Testament scriptures that speak of "the LORD [''Jehovah''] thy God [''Elohim'']" (e.g., [http://scriptures.lds.org/deut/4/2#2 Deuteronomy 4:2]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/deut/4/35#35 4:35]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/deut/6/4#4 6:4]) as proof that these are different titles for the same God.

{{CriticalSources}}

==Response==
Although ''Elohim'' is understood and used in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the name-title of God the Eternal Father and the name ''Jehovah'' is reserved for His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ{{ref|talmage1}}, this has not always been the case. Nineteenth-century Mormons—including Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor—generally used ''Jehovah'' as the name of God the Father. Latter-day Saints also recognize that the Hebrew word ''Elohim'' was used anciently as a generic word for "god."{{ref|tpjs1}}

===Use of ''Elohim'' and ''Jehovah'' in the Old Testament===
The separation of ''Elohim'' and ''Jehovah'' in the Hebrew Old Testament is not as clear as critics would have us believe.

The following scriptures illustrate the confusion of divine names in the Old Testament:

*[http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/34/23#23 Exodus 34:23] combines the Hebrew words ''Adon'' (Lord), ''Jehovah'' (LORD) and ''Elohim'' (God [of Israel]) into one title which is translated "Lord God, the God of Israel" or "Lord Jehovah, God of Israel."
*The Hebrew version of [http://scriptures.lds.org/ps/82/1#1 Psalm 82:1] reads: "God [''Elohim''] stands in the assembly of God [''El'']; he judges in the midst of the gods [''Elohim'']."
*[http://scriptures.lds.org/ps/110/1#1 Psalm 110:1] reads: "The LORD [''Jehovah''] said unto my Lord [''Adonai''], Sit thou at my right-hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." ([http://scriptures.lds.org/heb/1/1-3#1 Hebrews 1:1–3] indicates that God the Father said this to Jesus Christ; see also [http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/22/44#44 Matthew 22:44]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/mark/12/36#36 Mark 12:36]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/luke/20/42#42 Luke 20:42].)
*In one instance ([http://scriptures.lds.org/ps/8/5#5 Psalm 8:5]), the Hebrew ''Elohim'' is even rendered "angels." The Hebrew text states that Jehovah made the son of man "a little less than ''Elohim''" [KJV "angels"]. Though most literal translations render ''Elohim'' as "God" in this verse, there is justification for translating it "angels": [http://scriptures.lds.org/heb/2/7#7 Hebrews 2:7] quotes this verse, using the Greek word ''aggelos'' ("angels") in place of ''Elohim''.
*We also find that ''Elohim'' is translated in four instances as "judges" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/21/6#6 Exodus 21:6; [http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/22/8-9#8 22:8–9]), though "God's representative" is probably the intended meaning. This nevertheless shows that divine names were used by inspired writers with different meanings.

===Development of name-titles in Israelite history===
In the Old Testament, the title ''Elohim'' often emphasizes the strong, covenant-keeping qualities of God while the name ''Jehovah'', the self-existent and eternal attributes; and ''Adonai'', the characteristics of a sovereign lord; they have not always been applied to just one God.

A study of the various Hebrew words used for deity in the Old Testament reveals that the same name-titles were often used for both true and false gods as well as for human leaders. Thus, the Hebrew for ''Elohim'' and ''Jehovah'' were often used in a generic sense. Such usage could especially cause confusion if the text were later modified.

Eugene Seaich has indicated that many scholars have found that early Canaanite and Israelite theology recognized two separate and distinct sets of divine traits: one for a "Father of gods" and "Father of men" and the other for a son of the former who was a "dying-and-resurrecting god, who gave life to all creatures" and "managed the cosmos for his Father." Seaich explains that the High God was called "El and his son was called Ba'al at least through the time of the Israelite monarchy." The Israelites who returned from the desert with the Mosaic religion referred to El's son as ''Yahweh''. Some evidence of this distinction still survives in our Old Testament scriptures (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/deut/32/8-9#8 Deuteronomy 32:8–9]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/ps/82 Psalm 82]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/prov/30/4#4 Proverbs 30:4]). He also notes that [http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/1 Genesis chapter 1] speaks of ''Elohim'' (the longer form of ''El'') as the creator while [http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/2 chapter 2] speaks of ''Yahweh-Elohim''. Seaich writes:

:...the Mosaic reform, which only began as an attempt to root out the licentious excesses to which the old polytheism had sunk (Ex. 32), took at least a half-dozen centuries to establish itself as Israel's "true" religion, eliminating in the process many former truths, before emerging as the "ethical monotheism" of late Judaism.... In the new monotheism...the earlier Elohim and Yahweh became the single "YHWH-Elohim" of Deut. 6:4.... The complete assimilation of two gods into one probably took as long as the "Monotheistic Reform" itself, i.e. from ca. 1500 to 500 <small>B.C.</small>.... Finally, the Old Testament itself was thoroughly subjected to a corresponding revision (known as the "Deuteronomic Revision").{{ref|seaich1}}

===Divine investiture===
Latter-day Saints also believe that Jesus often spoke for the Father by right of divine investiture. Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

:"... since he [Jesus] is one with the Father in all of the attributes of perfection, and since he exercises the power and authority of the Father...the Father puts his own name on the Son and authorizes him to speak in the first person as though he were the Father."{{ref|brm1}}

There are numerous examples of divine investiture in scripture. The clearest biblical examples involve angels speaking in behalf of God or Christ ([http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/22/11-12#11 Genesis 22:11—12]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/3/2,6#2 Exodus 3:2, 6]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/23/20-21#20 23:20–21]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/1/1#1 Revelation 1:1]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/19/9-13#9 19:9–13]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/22/8-16#8 22:8–16]), though Christ also spoke "as though he were the Father" on many occasions throughout the Old Testament ([http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/17/1#1 Genesis 17:1]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/35/11#11 35:11]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/6/3#3 Exodus 6:3]). Christ was also referred to as "the Almighty" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/1/8,18#8 Revelation 1:8, 18]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/4/8#8 4:8]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/11/17#17 11:17]). It is for this reason that many other Christians identify Elohim and Jehovah as the same person.

===The LDS view===
The concept of Christ as the Father is clearly set forth in a 1916 statement entitled, "The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve."{{ref|presexpo1}}

Additional support for the LDS differentiation in the use of divine titles is found in New and Old Testament scriptures. Matthew and Mark reported that Jesus while on the cross cried out to his Father using the name ''Eli'' ([http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/27/46#46 Matthew 27:46]) or ''Eloi'' ([http://scriptures.lds.org/mark/15/34#34 Mark 15:34]). Both of these names are regarded by scholars as the Aramaic equivalents of ''El'' or ''Elohim''.{{ref|strongs1}}

Although references to Christ's sonship are somewhat rare in the Old Testament, they nevertheless exist. [http://scriptures.lds.org/dan/3/25#25 Daniel 3:25] describes a fourth individual in Nebuchadnezzar's furnace whose form was like a "Son of God [''Elah'']." [http://scriptures.lds.org/prov/30/4#4 Proverbs 30:4] speaks of the "son" of the creator and [http://scriptures.lds.org/dan/7/13#13 Daniel 7:13] refers to the glorious coming of the "Son of man" (compare [http://scriptures.lds.org/john/3/13#13 John 3:13] and [http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/6/57#57 Moses 6:57]). [http://scriptures.lds.org/hosea/11/1#1 Hosea 11:1] was quoted by Matthew ([http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/2/15#15 2:15]) as a prophecy that God's "son" would be called out of Egypt and we should not forget that Isaiah's famous messianic prophecy foretold the birth of a son who would also be known by the titles "everlasting Father" and "mighty God" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/isa/7/14#14 Isaiah 7:14]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/isa/9/16#16 9:16]). All of these scriptures provide evidence that, as Nephi stated, many do now "stumble exceedingly" because of the "plain and precious thing which have been taken away" from the scriptures ([http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/13/26-30,34,40#26 1 Nephi 13:26–30, 34, 40]).

==Conclusion==
The conviction that ''Elohim'' was anciently the Almighty God and Father of us all, and ''Jehovah'' was and is Jesus the Christ, his Son is based on modern scripture ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/110/1-4#1 D&C 110:1–4]) and not Biblical exegesis. The teachings of modern prophets and apostles has tended to reinforce this usage, such as when President Joseph F. Smith taught, "Among the spirit children of Elohim the firstborn was and is Jehovah or Jesus Christ to whom all others are juniors."{{ref|jfs1}}

The LDS use of the name titles ''Elohim'' and ''Jehovah'' to designate God Our Heavenly Father and His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ respectively is not meant to insist that this is how these titles were always used anciently, including in the Holy Bible. Rather, these titles are a naming convention used in the modern Church for clarity and precision. Since Christ may be spoken of as "the Father" in a great many senses, the modern Saints use these name-titles to avoid ambiguity, regardless of which 'role' of a divine Personage is being discussed.

Since this terminology was not standardized for convenience and clarity prior to the twentieth century, readers are cautioned not to expect the early writings of the Church to always reflect this practice, which arose only decades later. Likewise, attempting to read the Bible as if its writers followed the same modern practice is anachronistic, and may lead to confusion and misinterpretation.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|talmage1}}{{JtC1|start=38}}
#{{note|tpjs1}}{{TPJS1|start=371}} ; Eugene Seaich, ''Ancient Texts and Mormonism'', p. 20.
#{{note|seaich1}}Seaich, pp.15–21; see text for complete listing of references.
#{{note|brm1}}{{MD|start=130|end=131}}
#{{note|presexpo1}}"The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition of the First Presidency and the Twelve," 30 June 1916. First published in ''Improvement Era'' 19 (August 1916):934–42; most recently available in ''Ensign'' 32 (April 2002):13–18, available {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2002.htm/ensign%20april%202002.htm/gospel%20classics%20%20the%20father%20and%20the%20son.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0}}.
#{{note|strongs1}}''Strong's Greek Dictionary of the New Testament'', p. 35; see entries for "Elah" and "Eloah."
#{{note|jfs1}}''Improvement Era'', December 1916, pp. 940–41; also quoted in ''1990 Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide'', p. 39. See also Talmage, pp. 36–38; Joseph Fielding McConkie and Donald W. Parry, ''A Guide to Scriptural Symbols'', parts 2 & 3).

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*{{GodWiki}}
*{{JesusWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{GodFAIR}}

===Video===
{{Video:Gardner:2003:Monotheism}}

===External links===
{{GodLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{GodPrint}}

Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Mulek

2007-11-10T18:02:48Z

BenSpackman: /* Response */

==Criticism==
Critics of the Book of Mormon argue that it contradicts the Bible when it states that one of King Zedekiah's sons (Mulek) escaped and came to the Americas.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*Utah Lighthouse Ministries.
*Saints Alive Ministry Newsletter. May-June 1999.
*Life After Ministries.

==Response==
The Book of Mormon teaches that when Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon during the reign of Zedekiah all of the sons of Zedekiah were killed, except one son named Mulek. {{scripture||Omni|1|15}}, {{scripture||Helaman|8|21}}

Biblical evidence does not preclude the existence of another son of King Zedekiah. In fact, recent evidence brought to light by non-LDS scholars indicates otherwise:
:The first clue of the existence and escape of Mulek, son of Zedekiah, can be found in {{s|2|kings|25|1-10}}, which reports that Nebuchadrezzar and "all his host" scattered "all the men" and "all [the king's] army" and burnt "all the houses of Jerusalem," and with "all the army" they destroyed the walls. In the midst of all this, however, {{s|2|kings|25|7}} omits the word all when it reports only that "the sons" of Zedekiah were killed, leaving open the question whether all of his sons were slain.{{ref|welch1}}

There is a clear distinction here between using the clarifier "all" in reference to the other subjects and not using it when talking about the sons of Zedekiah. It is not necessary that the author write "all but one" when referring to the death of the other sons.

Although it is debatable{{ref|roper1}}, there is some evidence that "Malchiah the son of Hammelech" in {{s||Jeremiah|38|6}} is a possible reference to the Book of Mormon's Mulek.{{ref|welch1}}. Hammelech is Hebrew for “The king.” So, accurately translated, {{s||Jeremiah|38|6}} refers to "Malkiyahu son of the king." One can easily see how the author of these verses could have used "the king" rather than redundantly repeating Zedekiah's name. It is also suggested that the Book of Mormon name Mulek might be a shortened form of the biblical Hebrew Malkiyahu. In support of this possibility, it is noted that while Jeremiah's scribe is called Baruch in {{s||Jeremiah|36|4}}, a longer form of his name, Berekhyahu, appears on an ancient stamp seal impression{{ref|nahman}}.

Hugh Nibley wrote about some ancient documents found in the city Lachish during the time of Lehi. Nibley explains:
:"Mulek" is not found anywhere in the Bible, but any student of Semitic languages will instantly recognize it as the best-known form of diminutive or caritative, a term of affection and endearment meaning "little king." What could they call the uncrowned child, last of his line, but their little king? And what could they call themselves but Mulekiyah or Mulekites?
These documents help corroborate the story of Mulek and give credence to the notion of a sole surviving son of King Zedekiah. {{ref|nibley1}}

However, Nibley's extensive study of Arabic probably colored his analysis of Mulek. While Arabic has a diminutive form CuCeC (where C is a consonant of the root, in this case MLK), Hebrew does not. (Seeley in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, 5 (1993): 311-315). Moreover, Royal Skousen's work on the original text of the Book of Mormon has demonstrated that Mulek should have a different spelling, namely Muloch.

==Conclusion==
In conclusion, we see that the story of Mulek adds significant evidence to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. This information gives insight into the Bible and strength to Joseph Smith's testimony.

==Endnotes==
# {{note|welch1}} John W. Welch, ed., ''Reexploring the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992), 142–44.
# {{note|roper1}} John A. Tvedtnes, John Gee, and Matthew Roper, “Book of Mormon Names Attested in Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9/1 (2000): 79n58
# {{note|welch1}} John W. Welch, ed., ''Reexploring the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992), 142–44.
# {{note|Nahman}}Nahman Avigad, ''Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah'' (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986), 28–29.
# {{note|nibley1}} http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=34

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{Book of Mormon anachronisms}}

===FAIR web site===

===External links===

*{{JBMS-12-2-9}}
*{{BYUS|author=John L. Sorenson|article=The Mulekites|vol=30|num=?|date=Summer 1990|start=6|end=22}} {{link|url=http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=620}}

===Printed material===
*{{reexploring|author=Anonymous|article=New Information About Mulek, Son of the King|start=142|end=144}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?book_doc_id=296833}}

Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Mulek

2007-11-10T18:01:54Z

BenSpackman: /* Response */

==Criticism==
Critics of the Book of Mormon argue that it contradicts the Bible when it states that one of King Zedekiah's sons (Mulek) escaped and came to the Americas.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*Utah Lighthouse Ministries.
*Saints Alive Ministry Newsletter. May-June 1999.
*Life After Ministries.

==Response==
The Book of Mormon teaches that when Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon during the reign of Zedekiah all of the sons of Zedekiah were killed, except one son named Mulek. {{scripture||Omni|1|15}}, {{scripture||Helaman|8|21}}

Biblical evidence does not preclude the existence of another son of King Zedekiah. In fact, recent evidence brought to light by non-LDS scholars indicates otherwise:
:The first clue of the existence and escape of Mulek, son of Zedekiah, can be found in {{s|2|kings|25|1-10}}, which reports that Nebuchadrezzar and "all his host" scattered "all the men" and "all [the king's] army" and burnt "all the houses of Jerusalem," and with "all the army" they destroyed the walls. In the midst of all this, however, {{s|2|kings|25|7}} omits the word all when it reports only that "the sons" of Zedekiah were killed, leaving open the question whether all of his sons were slain.{{ref|welch1}}

There is a clear distinction here between using the clarifier "all" in reference to the other subjects and not using it when talking about the sons of Zedekiah. It is not necessary that the author write "all but one" when referring to the death of the other sons.

Although it is debatable{{ref|roper1}}, there is some evidence that "Malchiah the son of Hammelech" in {{s||Jeremiah|38|6}} is a possible reference to the Book of Mormon's Mulek.{{ref|welch1}}. Hammelech is Hebrew for “The king.” So, accurately translated, {{s||Jeremiah|38|6}} refers to "Malkiyahu son of the king." One can easily see how the author of these verses could have used "the king" rather than redundantly repeating Zedekiah's name. It is also suggested that the Book of Mormon name Mulek might be a shortened form of the biblical Hebrew Malkiyahu. In support of this possibility, it is noted that while Jeremiah's scribe is called Baruch in {{s||Jeremiah|36|4}}, a longer form of his name, Berekhyahu, appears on an ancient stamp seal impression{{ref|nahman}}.

Hugh Nibley wrote about some ancient documents found in the city Lachish during the time of Lehi. Nibley explains:
:"Mulek" is not found anywhere in the Bible, but any student of Semitic languages will instantly recognize it as the best-known form of diminutive or caritative, a term of affection and endearment meaning "little king." What could they call the uncrowned child, last of his line, but their little king? And what could they call themselves but Mulekiyah or Mulekites?
These documents help corroborate the story of Mulek and give credence to the notion of a sole surviving son of King Zedekiah. {{ref|nibley1}}

However, Nibley's extensive study of Arabic probably colored his analysis of Mulek. While Arabic has a diminutive form CuCeC (where C is a consonant of the root, in this case MLK), Hebrew does not. (Seeley in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, 5 (1993): 311-315 Moreover, Royal Skousen's work on the original text of the Book of Mormon has demonstrated that Mulek should have a different spelling, namely Muloch.

==Conclusion==
In conclusion, we see that the story of Mulek adds significant evidence to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. This information gives insight into the Bible and strength to Joseph Smith's testimony.

==Endnotes==
# {{note|welch1}} John W. Welch, ed., ''Reexploring the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992), 142–44.
# {{note|roper1}} John A. Tvedtnes, John Gee, and Matthew Roper, “Book of Mormon Names Attested in Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9/1 (2000): 79n58
# {{note|welch1}} John W. Welch, ed., ''Reexploring the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992), 142–44.
# {{note|Nahman}}Nahman Avigad, ''Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah'' (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986), 28–29.
# {{note|nibley1}} http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=34

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{Book of Mormon anachronisms}}

===FAIR web site===

===External links===

*{{JBMS-12-2-9}}
*{{BYUS|author=John L. Sorenson|article=The Mulekites|vol=30|num=?|date=Summer 1990|start=6|end=22}} {{link|url=http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=620}}

===Printed material===
*{{reexploring|author=Anonymous|article=New Information About Mulek, Son of the King|start=142|end=144}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?book_doc_id=296833}}

Death before the Fall of Adam and Eve

2007-09-18T18:22:42Z

BenSpackman: Fixed spelling error

{{CreationPortal}}
{{question}}

==Question==

Does LDS doctrine hold that there was no death before the Fall of Adam?

==Answer==

Some Latter-day Saint leaders have taught that there was no physical death on the earth prior to the fall of Adam. This view is taught in the LDS Bible Dictionary:

:Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the fall ({{s|2|Nephi|2|22}}; {{s||Moses|6|48}}).{{ref|bd1}}

This interpretation has been shared by many Church authors, including President Joseph Fielding Smith and Elder Bruce R. McConkie.{{ref|fn1}}

However, some LDS authors have not seen the scriptures cited by the Bible Dictionary as referring to all periods of time and all situations prior to the Fall, but merely describe the effect of the Fall upon humanity when Adam and Eve were put out of the Garden. The Bible Dictionary stance is not the only one which leaders of the Church have advanced.

Some critics have ignored the fact that—as Bible Dictionary editor Elder McConkie pointed out—the Bible Dictionary is neither infallible, nor an arbiter of Church doctrine:

:[As for the] "Joseph Smith Translation items, the chapter headings, Topical Guide, ''Bible Dictionary'', footnotes, the Gazeteer, and the maps. None of these are perfect; they do not of themselves determine doctrine; there have been and undoubtedly now are mistakes in them. Cross-references, for instance, do not establish and never were intended to prove that parallel passages so much as pertain to the same subject. They are aids and helps only."{{ref|mcconkie1}}

The Bible Dictionary itself also cautions against assuming that its contents reflect "an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth."{{ref|fn2}}

One must also not overlook an earlier debate on the issue of "pre-Adamites" between Elder Brigham H. Roberts of the Seventy and then-Elder Joseph Fielding Smith was brought to an end at the instruction of the First Presidency. Part of the debate centered around whether there was death prior to the Fall. At the request of the First Presidency, Elder James E. Talmage gave a [[Evolution:Primary_sources:Earth_and_Man|talk]] in the tabernacle, entitled "The Earth and Man." In it, he spoke of fossilized animals and plants and said:

:These lived and died, age after age, while the earth was yet unfit for human habitation.

With the approval of the First Presidency, this address was published in the ''Deseret News'', as a Church pamphlet, and later in ''The Instructor''.{{ref|earthman1}} Clearly, then, a universal lack of death prior to the fall is not a necessary belief within the Church, since leaders and members have held both positions.

Elder Talmage's position was made quite clear in a letter he wrote in response to a question about these matters:

:I cannot agree with your conception that there was no death of plants and animals anywhere upon this earth prior to the transgression of Adam, unless we assume that the history of Adam and Eve dates back many hundreds of thousands of years. The trouble with some theologians—even including many of our own good people—is that they undertake to fix the date of Adam's transgression as being approximately 4000 years before Christ and therefore about 5932 years ago. If Adam was placed upon the earth only that comparatively short time ago the rocks clearly demonstrated that life and death have been in existence and operative in this earth for ages prior to that time.{{ref|talmage2}}

The First Presidency eventually instructed the general authorities:

: Both parties [i.e., Elders Smith and Roberts] make the scripture and the statements of men who have been prominent in the affairs of the Church the basis of their contention; neither has produced definite proof in support of his views…

:Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored Gospel to the people of the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.

:We can see no advantage to be gained by a continuation of the discussion to which reference is here made, but on the contrary are certain that it would lead to confusion, division and misunderstanding if carried further. Upon one thing we should all be able to agree namely, that presidents Joseph F. Smith, John Winder and Anthon Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race.{{ref|1stpres1}}

Reflecting on this episode, Elder Talmage wrote in his diary:

:...Involved in this question is that of the beginning of life upon the earth, and ''as to whether there was death either of animal or plant before the fall of Adam'', on which proposition Elder Smith was very pronounced in denial and Elder Roberts equally forceful in the affirmative. As to whether Preadamite races existed upon the earth there has been much discussion among some of our people of late. The decision reached by the First Presidency, and announced to this morning's assembly, was in answer to a specific question that obviously the doctrine of the existence of races of human beings upon the earth prior to the fall of Adam was not a doctrine of the Church; and, further, that the conception embodied in the belief of many to the effect that there were no such Preadamite races, ''and that there was no death upon the earth prior to Adam's fall is likewise declared to be no doctrine of the Church''. I think the decision of the First Presidency is a wise one in the premises. This is one of the many things upon which we cannot preach with assurance and dogmatic assertions on either side are likely to do harm rather than good.{{ref|talmage1}}

==Conclusion==

Some LDS leaders have interpreted LDS scripture to teach that there was no death prior to the Fall of Adam for all plants and animals. Others have seen pre-Fall death of plants and/or animals as compatible with LDS doctrine, with the doctrine of "no death" applying only to Adam and Eve within the garden, and not the wider physical creation.

There is no official doctrine on the matter, and members in good standing have held both positions.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|bd1}} {{BD1|article=Death|start=655}} {{link1|url=http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/d/20}}
#{{note|fn1}} For a representative sample of the non-official statements made by Elder McConkie and others from a variety of perspectives, see [[Evolution:Primary_sources|here]].
#{{note|mcconkie1}}Bruce R. McConkie, cited in Mark McConkie (editor), ''Doctrines of the Restoration: Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1989), 289–290 {{ea}}. ISBN 0884946444. ISBN 978-0884946441.
#{{note|fn2}} {{BD1|article=Introduction|start=599}}
#{{note|earthman1}} James E. Talmage, "The Earth and Man," Address in the Tabernacle, (9 August 1931); originally published in the ''Deseret News'', 21 Nov 1931; subsequently published as a pamphlet by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1931; later published in ''The Instructor'', 100:12 (December 1965) :474–477; continued in ''The Instructor'' 101:1 (January 1966): 9–15. {{wikilink|url=Evolution:Primary_sources:Earth_and_Man}}
#{{note|talmage2}} Talmage to Heber Timothy, 28 Jan. 1932, Talmage Papers; cited in {{JMH|author=Richard Sherlock|date=1975|article=A Turbulent Spectrum: Mormon Responses to the Darwinist Legacy|vol=4|num=?|start=45|end=69}}
#{{note|1stpres1}} First Presidency, Memorandum to General Authorities, April 1931, 6–7.
#{{note|talmage1}} James Edward Talmage, Personal Journal (7 April 1931) 29:42, Archives and Manuscripts, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah {{ea}}.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{evolutionwiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{evolutionfair}}

===External links===
{{evolutionlinks}}

===Printed material===
{{evolutionprinted}}

Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon

2006-07-11T03:06:39Z

BenSpackman: /* External links */

{{draft}}

==Criticism==
The Book of Mormon does not contain Hebraic or Semitic language, as one should expect.

===Source(s) of the criticism===

==Response==

Many LDS sources argue that Hebraisms exist. Some have been overly enthusiastic or operated using problematic methodology. For example, Hebrew and other Semitic languages frequently give give a verb a cognate direct object for emphasis, eg. "he dreamed a dream" or "He hit him a hitting." Since the KJV translators were frequently literal in rendering the Hebrew, the Old Testament contains many English examples of this. Thus, the presence of the cognate accusative throughout the Book of Mormon , though a valid Semiticism, cannot be used as strong evidence for the Book of Mormon.

For a Semiticism to be strong evidence it must be a) present in the Book of Mormon b)but not common to Joseph's language environment (ie. the KJV, or English of his day.)

Several such constructions exist.

For example, in Alma 27:22, the Nephites give the land Jershon to the Anti-Nephi-Lehi's "for an inheritance." Jershon follows a common Hebrew practice of creating names by suffixing -on to the tri-consonantal root. In this case, we have the root y-r-sh, which means among other things, "to inherit." (Hebrew /y/ is usually represented in English with a j.) In other words, the Nephites give the land "Inheritance" to the Anti-Nephi-Lehi's for an inheritance.

If making up names at random, one could eventually make some that fit Hebrew patterns. However, the extreme unlikelihood of an imaginary name making sense in a reconstructed Hebrew original argues against this being the case with Jershon

==Conclusion==
The Book of Mormon does indeed have authentic Semitic constructions in it, but LDS need to tread cautiously in establishing them.

==Endnotes==

''None''



==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide:

===External links===
John Tvedtnes, [http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1986.htm/ensign%20october%201986%20.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm "I Have a Question" ''Ensign'', October 1986]

===Printed material===

Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon

2006-07-11T03:02:32Z

BenSpackman: /* External links */

{{draft}}

==Criticism==
The Book of Mormon does not contain Hebraic or Semitic language, as one should expect.

===Source(s) of the criticism===

==Response==

Many LDS sources argue that Hebraisms exist. Some have been overly enthusiastic or operated using problematic methodology. For example, Hebrew and other Semitic languages frequently give give a verb a cognate direct object for emphasis, eg. "he dreamed a dream" or "He hit him a hitting." Since the KJV translators were frequently literal in rendering the Hebrew, the Old Testament contains many English examples of this. Thus, the presence of the cognate accusative throughout the Book of Mormon , though a valid Semiticism, cannot be used as strong evidence for the Book of Mormon.

For a Semiticism to be strong evidence it must be a) present in the Book of Mormon b)but not common to Joseph's language environment (ie. the KJV, or English of his day.)

Several such constructions exist.

For example, in Alma 27:22, the Nephites give the land Jershon to the Anti-Nephi-Lehi's "for an inheritance." Jershon follows a common Hebrew practice of creating names by suffixing -on to the tri-consonantal root. In this case, we have the root y-r-sh, which means among other things, "to inherit." (Hebrew /y/ is usually represented in English with a j.) In other words, the Nephites give the land "Inheritance" to the Anti-Nephi-Lehi's for an inheritance.

If making up names at random, one could eventually make some that fit Hebrew patterns. However, the extreme unlikelihood of an imaginary name making sense in a reconstructed Hebrew original argues against this being the case with Jershon

==Conclusion==
The Book of Mormon does indeed have authentic Semitic constructions in it, but LDS need to tread cautiously in establishing them.

==Endnotes==

''None''



==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide:

===External links===
[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1986.htm/ensign%20october%201986%20.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm John Tvedtnes, "I Have a Question" ''Ensign'', October 1986]

===Printed material===

Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon

2006-07-11T02:59:41Z

BenSpackman: /* Response */

Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon

2006-07-11T02:59:06Z

BenSpackman:

{{draft}}

==Criticism==
The Book of Mormon does not contain Hebraic or Semitic language, as one should expect.

===Source(s) of the criticism===

==Response==

Many LDS sources argue that Hebraisms exist. Some have been overly enthusiastic or operated using problematic methodology. For example, Hebrew and other Semitic languages frequently give give a verb a cognate direct object for emphasis, eg. "he dreamed a dream" or "He hit him a hitting." Since the KJV translators were frequently literal in rendering the Hebrew, the Old Testament contains many English examples of this. Thus, the presence of the cognate accusative throughout the Book of Mormon , though a valid Semiticism, cannot be used as strong evidence for the Book of Mormon.

For a Semiticism to be strong evidence it must be a) present in the Book of Mormon b)but not common to Joseph's language environment (ie. the KJV, or English of his day.)

Several such examples exist.

For example, in Alma 27:22, the Nephites give the land Jershon to the Anti-Nephi-Lehi's "for an inheritance." Jershon follows a common Hebrew practice of creating names by suffixing -on to the tri-consonantal root. In this case, we have the root y-r-sh, which means among other things, "to inherit." (Hebrew y is usually represented in English with a j.) In other words, the Nephites give the land "Inheritance" to the Anti-Nephi-Lehi's for an inheritance.

If making up names at random, one could eventually make some that fit Hebrew patterns. However, the extreme unlikelihood of an imaginary name making sense in a reconstructed Hebrew original argues against this being the case with Jershon

==Conclusion==
The Book of Mormon does indeed have authentic Semitic constructions in it, but LDS need to tread cautiously in establishing them.

==Endnotes==

''None''



==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide:

===External links===

===Printed material===

Talk:Mormonism and the nature of God/Elohim and Jehovah

2006-07-11T02:31:29Z

BenSpackman:

Why are we spelling this Eloheim?

If we're trying to represent pronounciation, it should be elohīm (rhymes with "steam", not
"Kim".)

If we're just going for traditional English spelling, it should be Elohim.

User:BenSpackman

2006-07-11T02:28:52Z

BenSpackman:

I won't be in here a lot, but I'm glad to help where I can.