DiscussMormonism.com

This is a copy of his MAD post. Take a look at the last part which responds to the "critics."
======================================================================

Both the Book of Moses and the Book of Mormon contain references to prophets “standing” before the presence of deity. When read through the lens of Near Eastern tradition, these scriptural passages reflect another important link between modern revelation and the ancient world.

Concerning the prophet Moses who controls the water like God, the Book of Moses states:

“And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face” (Moses 1:31).

The image of a prophet standing in the presence of God proves meaningful from a Near Eastern perspective. In the world of the ancient Near East, special emphasis was given to the standing position assumed by the attendant who stood ready to accept any charge issued by the deity.

Notice that the motif appears in the famous stele of Hammurabi which depicts the Babylonian king standing before Shamash, the god of justice:



In the stele, Hammurabi stands as an attendant before god, ready to follow through on a commission to impart justice throughout the land.

Although subtle in nature, the symbol does appear in the Bible. Drawing upon this important Near Eastern tradition, Elijah the Tishbite proclaimed: “As the LORD God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand.” A similar reference occurs in Jeremiah’s discourse concerning true prophets “who hath stood in the counsel of the LORD, and hath perceived and heard his word? who hath marked his word, and heard it” (Jer. 23:18)

Significantly, the Near Eastern concept of a prophet/king standing in the presence of God as one ready to receive and follow through on a sacred commission appears in the Book of Mormon. In the description concerning the Savior’s visit to the Nephites, the account declares that the prophet Nephi immediately knelt before Jesus Christ:

“And Nephi arose and went forth, and bowed himself before the Lord and did kiss his feet” (3 Nephi 11:19)

The account transitions, however, from this description of Nephi kneeling to the Savior’s invitation to Nephi to “stand” before his God:

“And the Lord commanded him that he should arise. And he arose and stood before him” (3 Nephi 11:20).

Like Hammurabi and Elijah, once Nephi “stands” as a Near Eastern-like attendant before God, the prophet receives a sacred charge to go forward in the service of the deity:

“And the Lord said unto him: I give unto you power that ye shall baptize this people when I am again ascended into heaven" (v. 21).

I accept that on its own, this point, much like the reference to Moses controlling the water like God may not appear meaningful to many critics. I have read so much of this material that I can't help but get excited about these sorts of observations that work so well with Near Eastern tradition. The point is subtle and provides another impressive link between modern revelation and the ancient world.

Granted, when interpreted on its own, this observation may seem trivial to some critics.

I have to wonder, however, how many of these "trivial" observations are needed before the accumulation seems intellectually significant? What if there were dozens of such links? What if there were hundreds, thousands, millions?

At what point from the critics perspective would the accumulation of many “trivial” observations amount to something meaningful?

========================================================================== end post


dartagnan:

There are hundreds, even thousands of "links." Joseph Smith said Moses moved water like a God. The Bible says Moses, who was a God unto his people, moved the waters. Is it a parallel? Certainly. Is it impressive? Hardly. This equally serves as evidence for those who believe Smith produced the Book of Mormon through natural means. Bokovoy doesn't seem to understand this. And now we have this latest nugget where "standing before God" in Mormonism is supposed to "impress" us again. Bokovoy says "The image of a prophet standing in the presence of God proves meaningful from a Near Eastern perspective." Um, yes. As it proved meaningful in the Bible, which Joseph Smith owned and read before producing his inspired texts.

The number of possible parallels is perhaps limitless, but they are all superficial and can be explained via natural means. Smith was not ignorant of the Bible. The Book of Mormon has a plethora of parallels with the Bible. Since the Bible is an ancient document that has rots and parallels with ANE texts, then by default, so will the Book of Mormon. It is like connecting three dots instead of two. Any two year old can do it, but Bokovoy is making it seem like this is what his hard earned Ph.D is helping him reveal.

Bokovoy doesn't seem to grasp the fact that this is not a matter of quantity, as he tries to stack teh deck with as many meaningless and "trivial"parallels as possible. It is a question of quality. Until he produces a "link" that cannot be explained by natural means (i.e. Smith merely copied the already existing concept from the Bible) then nobody will be "impressed" with any of this stuff. He likes to think only the "critics" refuse to be impressed, but I submit that only apologists get impressed with this stuff, and none of them moreso than Bokovoy. He seems to have a defect in his logic processes, and it is strange. Why can't he see that none of these "parallels" mean a hill of beans unless he can show that Smith couldn't have derived them from the Bible or elsewhere? I mean that's what we're talking about right? Evidence that Joseph Smith was "inspired" and that he received divine truths directly from God and then wrote them down in the LDS canon. Copying ideas, concepts, words, half verses or entire verses from the Bible hardly requires "inspiration," so this means this cannot serve as evidence for inspiration. None of it does. And it certainly isn't anything to be "excited" about.

I'll let you guys have fun with this before commenting further. I just thought you'd get a kick out of his loopy logic.

Granted, when interpreted on its own, this observation may seem trivial to some critics.

I have to wonder, however, how many of these "trivial" observations are needed before the accumulation seems intellectually significant? What if there were dozens of such links? What if there were hundreds, thousands, millions?

At what point from the critics perspective would the accumulation of many “trivial” observations amount to something meaningful?

My response: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Answer

dartagnan wrote:Bokovoy doesn't seem to grasp the fact that this is not a matter of quantity, as he tries to stack teh deck with as many meaningless and "trivial"parallels as possible. It is a question of quality. Until he produces a "link" that cannot be explained by natural means (I.e. Smith merely copied the already existing concept from the Bible) then nobody will be "impressed" with any of this stuff. He likes to think only the "critics" refuse to be impressed, but I submit that only apologists get impressed with this stuff, and none of them moreso than Bokovoy. He seems to have a defect in his logic processes, and it is strange. Why can't he see that none of these "parallels" mean a hill of beans unless he can show that Smith couldn't have derived them from the Bible or elsewhere? I mean that's what we're talking about right? Evidence that Joseph Smith was "inspired" and that he received divine truths directly from God and then wrote them down in the LDS canon. Copying ideas, concepts, words, half verses or entire verses from the Bible hardly requires "inspiration," so this means this cannot serve as evidence for inspiration. None of it does. And it certainly isn't anything to be "excited" about.

I'll let you guys have fun with this before commenting further. I just thought you'd get a kick out of his loopy logic.

The thing is, it's so hard to gain respect... of peers, of colleagues, of academics in general. Surely every wannabe professor has stutter steps, that, when age, maturity, and experience have buffeted over a lifetime, they wish would just go away. We've all said things we grew old enough to realize were pretty stupid, when we were young and trying so hard. I think that's David's position right now: he's just trying too hard.

David Bokovoy wrote:I have to wonder, however, how many of these "trivial" observations are needed before the accumulation seems intellectually significant? What if there were dozens of such links? What if there were hundreds, thousands, millions?

Uh, David? Don't you realize that the knife cuts both ways? That anti-Mormon information can accumulate to the point of being intellectually significant, too?

The Kinderhook Plates. The Book of Abraham. Helen Mar Kimball. Taking other men's wives. The Kirtland Banking scandal. The Bainbridge Trial. Nephi/Moroni. Moroni/Camora. White/pure. Baseball baptisms. Buying up malls. Mark Hofmann. Zelph the white Lamanite. Masonry in the temple. Etc. etc. etc. What if there were dozens of such things? What if there were hundreds, thousands, millions? I have to wonder, how many of these "trivial" observations are needed before the accumulation seems intellectually significant?

dartagnan wrote:I'll let you guys have fun with this before commenting further. I just thought you'd get a kick out of his loopy logic.

I am, and I did!

I was going to read this dart....I really was. Then I realized that it was just another attempt by an apologist to sew an entire sweater out of two tiny strands of linen. These guys need to stop playing connect the invisible dots.

What would actually be surprising would be in a nineteenth century author writing a new text he intended to be accepted as scripture like the Bible, would NOT imbue the text with Biblical parallels.

In our modern culture, with an abundance of informational sources, sometimes we forget how important the Bible was, generally, as reading material for literate nineteenth century individuals. They read the Bible for entertainment, often nightly. Heck, the Bible was used, in that period, as the primary text to teach children to read. Add to that mix an admittedly religiously obsessed family, exposed to many Biblical orations as well, and you have the completely expected result of a new scripture that is very familiar to the Bible.

Brant uses a similar approach, in insisting that it's the quantity of parallels or possible connections to ancient Mesoamerica that is significant. Yet, when analyzed solely, they are incredibly weak parallels or possible connections.

Apologia is meant for people who are determined to keep believing, no matter what contrary evidence may arise, and want to feel better, intellectually, about that determination.