Bokovoy on the warpath again

[_CaliforniaKid]

Sorry, that's what I get for skimming a thread. I saw all the rhetoric and appeal to authority, but I missed the important parts.

[_Fortigurn]

Sorry, that's what I get for skimming a thread. I saw all the rhetoric and appeal to authority, but I missed the important parts.

I know what you mean, it's really messy. I've tried to keep my last post as lean as possible, but the prior exchanges are pretty much buried.

[Guest]

No Kevin, I did not address every issue you raised, nor am I going to continue this discussion because it’s simply a waste of time and I do have a lot going on right now. Imagine what would happen if someone like myself went onto an auto mechanic discussion board and began pontificating over issues pertaining to transmission repairs.

But David, you pontificate relentlessly on MAD and you absolutely hate discussion unless the other person takes it for granted that you and everything you say are above reproach. Ever since I was forced to leave the forum, the challenges to your diatribes have been reduced drastically. I don’t know about you, but I absolutely hate it when I start a thread and nobody responds. I love it when people challenge my theories because it helps me strengthen them. You choose to use these challenges as a means to stroke your ego, as you attempt to belittle their knowledge to exalt your own status.

Discussion should be the whole point, in my mind, not lecturing. I really believe few people understand what the heck you are talking about; they just like knowing someone on the home team with academic credentials is drawing the same theological conclusions one would expect from a devout LDS. As far as I can tell, I have been the only person to truly take you to task on several of the issues you raise. I agree with much of what you say, and when I disagree I usually speak up because you speak arrogantly in such absolutism. It will be people like me who will help you hone your apologetics, but you have to abandon the condescension if you want to be respected by anyone other than testimony carrying apologists who share the "take no prisoners" approach; coming to the table with the attitude that everything you say is in the form of lecture and correction.

It wouldn’t take more than a comment or two before the posters well versed in auto mechanics would know that I didn’t have a background in repairing transmissions. This is an issue that I have published on, presented on, and am writing on for a dissertation. So I really have read everything that I know exists on the topic (this includes visiting multiple libraries that will not release dissertations through ILL).

Excellent. Then you should have no problem explaining to me why the Enuma Elish is changing the way scholars interpret the Bible. I am genuinely interested in why you think this is so. I already know why and how they use it, but I want to know what your perspective on this is. (Advisory- This is not a disagreement, just a question)

Reality: No one who knows anything about the topic would ever suggest that the biblical phrase “host of heaven” refers to the council because of Enuma Elish.

Yet, you fail to explain why you think the Enuma Elish is crucial in establishing the general liberal understanding of the biblical divine council. And just so everyone knows, your snobbish “reality” bullet points are annoying and deceptive because it presupposes that the illusory strawmen you’ve created is something of my creation. And it appears you’ve chosen to dwell on the least consequential portion of my post…

The relevancy of Enuma Elish for this issue is that it provides an illustration of the divine council type scene discussed by scholars such as Parker and Tidwell.

This is no response to what I asked. How does the discovery of the Enuma Elish compel some scholars to see a divine council in the Bible, as opposed to before its discovery? These are simple question you seem reluctant to answer. This is rather odd given your alleged encyclopedic knowledge of the subject.

Reality: No one who has studied the issue would ever suggest that anything (let alone “everything”) in the Enuma Elish should supplant what is in the biblical account for any reason.

I never said this was the accepted scholarly view (my you have a knack for straw men!). I am trying to lure you to explain your rationale and understanding, unambiguously without all the “go read such and such scholar” dodge. You’re the scholar right? So stop referring us to arguments I have already read. Commit to a specific statement on the matter because without this you seem to be doing this precise thing. You’ve been using Enuma Elish for years to forward your apologetic agenda by recreating the traditional Hebrew text to speak of Mormon themes. You even use it as your moniker for Pete’s sake. Now you’re telling me there is “no reason” at all that anyone would use it to supplant what is in the biblical account?

Oh, by the way, does the JPS render elohim in Gen 1:1 in the plural?

True, the Enuma Elish seems to have had an influence upon the author of Genesis 1, but this influence has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the Bible presents a Near Easternlike perspective of the divine council.

You’ve maintained that thanks to the Enuma Elish, we can now render many biblical passages “divine council.” But at the same time you want to mitigate the impression it has had, particularly on liberal scholars. This is why I am asking for clarification, yet all I get is indignation.

Reality: I don’t know of any scholars who believe that the Bible is simply borrowed myth from Enuma Elish. Even those who believe that Enuma Elish had a direct impact upon Genesis 1 recognize that the Priestly version of creation (Gen. 1) contains many unique elements important to the author.

Then you need to pop your head out of Brandeis once in a while and smell the manure. I’m in Brazil right now, and had I known I would ever be arguing about this (especially with another theist) I would have brought my collection relating to this subject. But off the top of my head, Gary Greenberg is a prominent figure who forwards this thesis.

Reality: The Enuma Elish does depict a divine council.

But if the words “divine council” are not present, we have to use the context in order to infer it from the text. The same holds true for the Bible, the Zohar, the numerous rabbinical works, etc. I’m not saying it isn’t being referred to. But I would like for you to illustrate for us your own understanding here. Tell us what would make a scholar retranslate a traditional Hebrew verse from “host” to “council”? The key obviously isn’t grammar; it must have something to do with modern discoveries, right? So please explain this process for us.

However, the fact that the depiction of creation in Enuma Elish features some striking parallels to the Biblical account has no bearing on the very real fact that “host of heaven” refers to the divine council in the Hebrew Bible.

Yet, the traditional “Host of Heaven” has only recently been understood as “divine council” and virtually every scholar who makes this determination speaks of recent discoveries to help justify their conclusion. So how do these discoveries influence them? This is where you have me confused on your exact understanding. I am not confused on the general contemporary scholarship, as you would prefer everyone assume. I am confused was to how you make the connections with the Enuma Elish to express its importance in modern biblical hermeneutics, while at the same time you say it has no bearing on these things. A call for explication.

Reality: There are actually many perfectly good Hebrew words for the council that appear in the Bible, not just one.

And? Where did I say anything that could possible be understood as a disagreement with this “reality”?

Reality: There exists lots of contextual evidence to insist that texts such as Gen. 6; Isaiah 6; I Kings 22; Psalm 82; etc. refer to a group functioning as a council.

Reality: I never argued otherwise. In fact, I agree with this, but my point is that it is obvious not all scholars agree. Thus, not all of scholarship has your back. I have always maintained that the divine council is a good rendering if the context suggests it. For example, God standing in the middle of a group of people pronouncing judgment, well this is clearly a divine council scene. But it is perhaps the only unambiguous example, which probably explains why none of the modern translations, aside from the JSP, render any of the other verses accordingly.

Kevin, I don’t doubt that the brief comments I have posted on the web boards appear “sloppy” to you.

Well, doubt it.

Incomplete and inadequate come to mind, but I wouldn’t say sloppy. You’re doing the same thing with this Enuma Elish issue as you did with the Zohar. You’re focusing on, while interesting, a relatively minor issue with respect to the topic, and using it to divert attention away from the crucial points of my response that truly undermine your original thesis regarding evidence for Joseph Smith’s prophetic authority. You managed to ignore or circumvent every single thing I said, in preference for the peripheral issue of the Enuma Elish.

This is because you do not have the background necessary to understand the issue in full

I can assure you, you have no earthly idea just what my background is on these matters. I am not interested in a pissing contest like I used to be. I know I have held my own in discussions on B-Hebrew e-lists with those who have far more training and experience than you, and I have also written extensively on this subject, in what is by far the most exhaustive, source-packed apologetic that is currently available (http://www.kevingraham.org/jp1.htm). A glance would reveal we’re not as far apart as you would assume, but I realize that since I have been declared “the demised” by the religious police at MAD, you’re more inclined to assume more about me than you are to learn.

The difference between us is that I am not reluctant to talk about this nor do I talk down to anyone who would dare challenge my expertise, and then run off in conceited fashion while leaving absurd analogies that make me an Einstein and my opponent a Forrest Gump.

nor is a discussion board the place to lay out a detailed academic perspective.

“Hell hath no fury like an academic held accountable.” – Martin Kramer

In any event, while the Gilgamesh epic is a fascinating topic to discuss, I prefer to get back on point and discuss why you feel Joseph Smith isn’t a good source to use in refuting you’re the apologetic contention that he obtained his knowledge through divine revelation, and not natural means. To whom was he referring when he said “others” had showed him a henotheistic rendering of Gen 1:1, which he clearly borrowed?

[_Fortigurn]

In any event, while the Gilgamesh epic is a fascinating topic to discuss, I prefer to get back on point and discuss why you feel Joseph Smith isn’t a good source to use in refuting you’re the apologetic contention that he obtained his knowledge through divine revelation, and not natural means. To whom he was referring when he said “others” had showed him a henotheistic rendering of Gen 1:1, which he clearly borrowed.

Good question. And I still want Smith's mangling of Genesis 1:1 and 'elohim' in Genesis 1 and 2 addressed. Let's see a few more cards on the table from the Mormon side.

[_Enuma Elish]

Fortigurn,

I thought you said 'I honestly thought that I had read everything ever written on the issue'. Now you're telling me you don't know where to find the relevant literature? Try the following sources:

If you have a specific reference that supports your claim that not all scholars refer to an assembly of gods when they use the expression “Divine Council,” then I would sincerely appreciate having the source. Clearly providing a list of journals won’t help me, other readers, and/or your claim.

No, it's because I understand the Old Testament Divine council is different to the Canaanite Divine council. That's why the Canaanites, Sumerians and Akkadians refer explicitly to a Divine council of gods who collaborate on how to deal with humans (usually ineptly), while the Old Testament refers explicitly to one God who is accompanied by angels who carry out His decrees.

Of course there are some differences between the biblical, Sumerian, Hittite, Akkadian, and/or Canaanite depictions of the council. Every Near Eastern culture was a unique entity. Some Hittite material attempts to summarize the council with the expression “The Thousand Gods of Hatti.” Adopting the expression from the Assyrian Vassal Treaties, some biblical authors appear to summarize the council with the expression “heaven and earth.” So yes, there are differences.

There’s no doubt that most biblical authors wanted to place special emphasis upon their God—the head of the council. This effort results in a variety of texts where the council is deemphasized, although still very much present.

In Hebrew, the phrase 'son of X' refers to a class which is characterized by a quality of X. It is not equivalent to X.

This is simply incorrect. The Hebrew word for son is “ben.” The Aramaic word for son is “bar.” Both terms appear in the Old Testament. Concerning these words, the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament states:

“ben and bar are also used to denote membership in certain social and professional groups. Thus bene haggolah, ‘sons of exile,’ means those who have been carried into exile (Ez. 4:1; 6:20; 8:35; 2 Ch. 25:13…), ben chorim, ‘son of nobles,’ freedman (Eccl. 10:17; cf. Neh. 4:8[14]), bene ‘ebhyon, the poor (Ps. 72:4), bene hattoshabim, sojourners (Lev. 25:45), and bene ha’am, the common people (2 K. 23:6; Jer. 26:23; 2 Ch. 35:5, 7,12f.)…

“The expression bene ha’elohim, ‘sons of God,’ in Gen. 6:1-4 has been the object of numerous investigations. There can be no doubt that in this fragment of a mythical narrative the author of the original oral or written tradition was thinking of gods, especially in light of Ugaritic parallels (where bn is often used to denote membership in a group).” H. Haag, “ben,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament; vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 152, 157.

Kevin tends to complain about my strong language in reference to the scholarly view. "There can be no doubt" is about as strong as it gets.

You cite the Ugarit tablets indicating that the gods of the Ugarit Divine council are called the 'sons of the gods', but the fact is that there are no Divine council passages in the Old Testament in which the phrase 'sons of the gods' is used. Not only that, but we can see that the Hebrew idiom 'son of X' precludes the subject being 'X' (so 'sons of God' in Hebrew would not mean 'gods', and nor would 'sons of the gods').

See Ibid.

In other words, Dahood thinks that the phrase 'sons of God' in the psalms means 'gods' (despite the fact that the Hebrew idiom 'son/s of' functions in a different way), and the NRSV adopts two readings which contradict each other. Thanks, but this isn't evidence for your case.

It is evidence that supports my claim that the phrase “sons of God” can refer to the gods. So is the entry on "ben" from the Theological Dictionary.

Evidence please. You keep citing various articles which say 'Well the pagan Divine councils were made up of gods, so we assume the Israelite Divine council was also made up of gods',

You don’t know what’s in any of those articles and/or books (just like you don’t have any clue what’s in David Wright’s study on the Covenant Collection that you simply dismissed). I can assure you that no one says, “Well the pagan Divine Councils were made up of gods, so we can assume that the Israelite Divine Council was also made up of gods.”

despite the fact that the Old Testament never actually describes a Divine council made up of Gods.

Of course it does. If you need a specific text to consider stay focused upon Psalm 82.

We have a single God in Genesis 1:26 addressing unnamed others,

This is true. Given the fundamental administrative role fulfilled by the council in the Hebrew Bible, there can be no doubt that God is speaking to the council. Note also that Yahweh confirms the legitimacy of the serpent’s statement “ye shall be as gods,” with the assertion, “the man is become as one of us.” This clearly indicates that when speaking in the plural, Yahweh is addressing other gods.

we have 'sons of God' in Genesis 6 who are not only clearly mortal but who are not in a Divine Council

There is no evidence to suggest that the gods in Genesis 6 were mortal. But even if they could die, this would not indicate that they were not gods and members of Yahweh’s council. Gods die!

we have Divine council passages in 1 Kings 22, Isaiah 6, and Ezekiel 1 and 9 which never refer to 'gods' (only one God, accompanied by seraphim, angels, or 'spirits' who are always subordinate to Him and who simply carry out His commands). As I said before, you can quote all the articles you like, but it won't change what's in the text.

How can you possibly know that the information in an article that you have not read won’t change your reading of a biblical text? The same way you know that David’ Wright's forthcoming book is filled with “nonsense”?

If you had even one Old Testament passage in which God was seen presiding over a Divine council of what are referred to explicitly as 'gods' (rather than spirits, angels, or seraphim), who collaborate in their decisions as to how they will deal with men, you would have given it to me by now. But you don't.

If you’re looking specifically for passages that refer to the Divine Council members as “gods,” we have a multiplicity of texts. You’ve ignored Genesis 6 and Psalm 82, perhaps you should also ignore Job 1-2.

So you try to press Isaiah into service as a 'god', which only makes the contrast between the Israelite Divine council and the pagan Divine councils even more acute.

Isaiah does become a god. As I tried to explain (and as the references I provided make clear), Isaiah 6 draws upon imagery specifically associated with Mesopotamian idolatry and deification. This background makes the mouth ritual very, very meaningful in the account. As Victor Hurowitz has noted:

"A large portion of the [Mesopotamian] sources . . . raise[s] the possibility that the washing of the mouth . . . has independent significance as a characteristic granting or symbolizing special divine or quasi-divine status to the person or object so designated. The pure mouth enables the person or object to stand before the gods or to enter the divine realm, or symbolizes a divine status;” Hurowitz, “Isaiah’s Impure Lips,” 54.

Yes, and other people 'provide evidence' that the 'original source for Genesis 6 seems to have been' the Sumerian Enuma Elish,

There is no such thing as the Sumerian Enuma Elish.

or the Akkadian Atrahasis Epic, or the Assyrian Gilgamesh Epic, or perhaps the North American Indian flood story of the Cowichan tribe.
Thanks, but I'm not interested in parallelomania.

Yes, I know you’re not interested in any of these studies. Given your track record, I’m sure that all of these unread studies are wrong.

You refer to the phrase 'host of heaven' in 1 Kings 22, and quote an article which claims (without evidence), that the 'host of heaven' here refers to the gods who made up the heavenly court in Judah and Israel'.

It’s not an article. It’s a book with a total of 218 pages of evidence which support the author’s statement. I’m not going to post everything Lowell K. Handy lays out. It’s enough to provide you with the reference and the quote where he states that “it is widely understood” that the host of heaven “were the gods who made up the heavenly court.”

This supports my claim that Biblicists “widely agree” with my suggestion. If you want’ further evidence, read the book.

I'm sorry, but that's not good enough. It doesn't take 5 minutes of work to identify the fact that the phrase 'host of heaven' is consistently used throughout the Old Testament to refer to the sun, moon, and stars, not to gods of the Divine council.

Of course the Bible refers to the astral figures as gods of the Divine Council, i.e. “the host of heaven.” This was actually the focus of my initial post in the thread. The view comes through quite clearly, for example, in Deuteronomy which states:

“When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods (Deut. 32:8; NRSV).

These "gods" who, according to Deuteronomy 32, govern the nations of the world first appear as astral figures, i.e. “the host of heaven,” in Deuteronomy 4: 19-20:

“And when you look up to the sky and behold the sun and the moon and the stars, the whole heavenly host, you must not be lured into bowing down to them or serving them. These the LORD your God assigned to other peoples everywhere under heaven; but you the LORD took and brought out of Egypt” (Deut. 4:19-20)

Note that God assigned these gods to “other peoples everywhere under heaven.” You should also consider Job 38:7 which specifically links the gods with the “morning stars” through synonymous parallelism:

“When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”

Because he's making the claim that the Mosaic covenant text was borrowed from the Law of Hammurabi. That's what you told me he has to say, so I don't know how you can claim I 'haven't any clue what Wright has to say'.

Simply knowing the thesis doesn’t mean that you understand the argument. This is why you can’t dismiss it as “nonsense” without reading what he has to say.

Ah, the old 'It's in the newspaper, it must be true, because 'They' wouldn't let it be printed if it wasn't true!' fallacy.

You misunderstood. I didn’t say that simply because Oxford University Press is printing the book it is therefore “true.” I said simply because Oxford University Press is printing the book that the book will not contain, oh, how did you put it, “regurgitated debunked scholarship from the 19th century.”

No, because they simply aren't in the Bible. The only deities other than Israel's God are referred to as the false gods of the heathen, whose genuine existence is explicitly denied in many Old Testament passages.

I’ve already demonstrated that this is not true. If you would like additional support that contradicts your claim that the only gods who appear in the Bible are referred to as the false gods of the heathen, consider the important article by Yair Hoffman, “The Conception of Other Gods in Deuteronomistic Literature,” Concepts of the Other in Near Eastern Religions; Israel Oriental Studies XIV; ed. Ilai Alon, et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 196-210.

True, the Bible speaks of gods separate from Israel’s primary deity as elohim a?erim i.e.,“other gods” (see Ex. 20:3; 23:13; Deut. 5:7; 6:14; etc.). However as Hoffman explains: “A survey of the use of a?erim [“other”] shows that when used attributively with regard to garments, days, messengers and objects, it clearly has a relative meaning: something different, yet of the same kind;” (pg. 107).

Therefore, “there is no reason to assume that in the phrase elohim a?erim the attribute has a more distinct meaning;” (Ibid.).

I don't believe that 'many prominent Biblicists' believe that 'Mormon polytheism' is 'truly represented in the Bible'.

Of course they don’t. Very few prominent Biblicists have any clue what Mormons belief.

I am certainly aware of many 'prominent Biblicists' who believe that Israel progressed from a polytheistic theological model to a monotheistic model, and who believe that vestiges of the old polytheism remain in the Old Testament texts. I've read plenty of such articles.

Actually, I don’t know of any contemporary Biblicists who believe that Israel was monotheistic. William Dever really underestimates the issue when he states:

"A generation ago, when I was a graduate student, biblical scholars were nearly unanimous in thinking that monotheism had been predominant in ancient Israelite religion from the beginning—not just as an ‘ideal,’ but as the reality. Today all that has changed. Virtually all mainstream scholars (and even a few conservatives) acknowledge that true monotheism emerged only in the period of the exile in Babylon in the 6th century B.C., as the canon of the Hebrew Bible was taking shape… I have suggested, along with most scholars, that the emergence of monotheism—of exclusive Yahwism—was largely a response to the tragic experience of the exile." William G. Dever, Did God Have a Wife: Archeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005): 295, 297.

You see, “virtually all mainstream scholars” acknowledge that exclusive Yahwism did not emerge until the exilic time period. This means that “Israel” was not monotheistic. But neither was the post-exilic Jewish community by today’s standards. A nice introduction to this issue is Paula Fredricksen’s “Gods and the One God: in Antiquity, All Monotheists were Polytheists,” in Bible Review 19 (2003): 12,49.

Fredricksen notes the following:

“What did it mean, in ancient times, to 'believe in' one god? Such belief did not entail doubting the existence of other gods! The most powerful and most important God, claimed the Bible, had revealed himself to Israel; but other nations had their own gods, presumably lower deities. To pick one example: The prophet Micah says that 'all the peoples walk each in the name of its god; but we [Israel] will walk in the name of the Lord our God forever and ever' (Micah 4:5, Revised Standard Version [RSV]). The deities of other nations were 'real.'

“No ancient monotheist was a modern monotheist. Divinity expressed itself along a gradient, and the High God, be he pagan, Jewish or Christian, hardly stood alone. Lesser divinities filled in the gap, cosmic and metaphysical, between humans and God. Heaven’s divine population had to wait for the Renaissance, and the beginnings of modern science, to be seriously pruned. Antiquity’s universe, by comparison, was filled with gods. Monotheists directed their particular worship to the being they termed the high god, while dealing with the others as they would. To make the same point differently: While not every ancient polytheist was a monotheist, all ancient monotheists were, by our measure, polytheists.”

For the full article see here:

http://members.bib-arch.org/nph-proxy.p ... UserID=3d0

You're certainly welcome to endorse a post-biblical view of radical monotheism, but don't expect to find it in the Bible.

But again, you're trying to avoid the point. As I said, if Mormonism polytheism was truly represented in the Bible, then God would send one of the many 'lower-ranking deities', not a prophet.

I’m not avoiding the point. You’re missing the point. The prophet was a lower-ranking deity.

Israel's apostasy is not represented as 'a crisis' here. In fact Israel's apostasy does not even come into view. The issue is the king of Israel's decision whether or not to attack Ramoth Gilead. Hardly a 'crisis'.

Ok. It’s fine with me if you wish to get specific. The crisis in 1 Kings 22 is specifically whether or not to attack Ramoth Gilead. This of course relates to the greater context of Israel’s apostasy which is why a council judgment is at hand.

As I said, you've ignored the fact that there is no discussion about how to resolve the 'crisis' (though no 'crisis' is represented here).

No. You’ve ignored the answer.

When God asks the question “Who will entice Ahab so that he will march and fall at Ramoth-gilead?,” this question addressed to the council is part of a discussion concerning how to resolve the crisis.

When the author states that in the council “then one said thus and another said thus (v. 20),” he describes a discussion concerning how to resolve the crisis.

When God asks the “spirit” who volunteers to address the crisis “how” he proposes to accomplish the task, this is a discussion concerning how to resolve the crisis.

There is no consultation among equals here.

Of course not! None of the council stories that follow this patter present the gods of the assembly as equals. As Richard J. Clifford has explained concerning the Phoenician depiction of the assembly “as elsewhere in the ancient Near East, the assemblies are pictured as subordinate to individual gods, although the assembly’s consent seems necessary for important decisions.” Richard J. Clifford, “Phoenician Religion,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 27 (1999): 57.

This is precisely what occurs in the Bible. I honestly have no idea why you would assume that a divine council story must present a consultation among equals!

God simply decrees what will be done, and asks for volunteers.

No doubt God had a plan. Yet if he simply decrees what will be done, why bother asking for volunteers? Why not simply decree: “You, Go!” Comparably, in Isaiah 6, why would God ask the council “Who will go for us?” If the council is not involved in the decision making, why would God not say, “Isaiah Go!”

You see, here is where the pattern witnessed in Near Eastern council stories such as Enuma Elish helps to establish evidence for what is taking place; why God even bothers to ask his council questions.

Also, remember what Tidwell explained in the Journal of Biblical Literature concerning the biblical council genre as

“a narrative of events in the heavenly council on an occasion when the council is gathered to make some fateful decision concerning the affairs of men. In fact, wherever in the Old Testament the activities of the council are described, or the deliberations of the council may by thought to be alluded to, some decision of great moment is always involved.” “Washington’omar (Zech. 3:5) and the Genre of Zechariah’s Fourth Vision,” JBL, 94 (1975): 352.

A subordinate 'spirit' presents himself (why is he not called a god, or even a 'son of the gods'?), and is only asked how he will carry out the command which has already gone forth. There is no discussion of how to resolve the 'crisis', and no 'various proposals' are referred to.

You’re way off. Read the account slowly:

"Then one said thus and another said thus, until a certain spirit came forward and stood before the LORD and said, ‘I will entice him.’ ‘How?’ the LORD asked him. And he replied, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then He said, ‘You will entice and you will prevail. Go out and do it.’ (vv. 20-22 JPS).

Note that the discussion takes place “until a certain spirit came forward.” The Spirit is asked the question “how,” however, the command to go forth that you are seeking occurs only after the Spirit explains to God what he will do. After the explanation, God decrees, “Go out and do it.”

Not only is there no 'crisis' here, but it is completely absurd to claim that the actions of the 'lying spirit' who volunteers to serve as God's tool in the way He decided to bring about the destruction of Israel's army, is a god among a council of gods who is acting as a 'saviour' in a 'crisis', after deliberation among the gods as to how the 'crisis' will be resolved.

It’s not absurd. There are a variety of ways to “save.” Within the Bible, there are a variety of distinct issues, including Yahweh’s word and honor that require “saving.”

Good question. And I still want Smith's mangling of Genesis 1:1 and 'elohim' in Genesis 1 and 2 addressed. Let's see a few more cards on the table from the Mormon side.

Have you read Kevin L. Barney, “Joseph Smith’s Emendation of Hebrew Genesis 1:1,” Dialogue 30/4 (Winter 1997): 103-35?

You can read it here:

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/docume ... OPTR=12754

[_Dan Vogel]

Will,

5. I never accused Dan Vogel of anything that he didn’’t admit to in the end, as ““Opie Rockwell”” (great handle, by the way) noted so accurately in the final post on my entry in your hall of shame:

You tried then to wiggle out of it, but you began the thread by implying quite clearly that I had invented the Cowdery Book of Mormon characters source. In fact, you said it would be a great find if true. All I did was give the wrong location based on an incorrect assumption about it's inclusion on a microfilm that included the KEP. I apologized for my error and thanked you for bringing it to my attention, but you never apologized for making such accusations. Nor did you thank me for bringing your attention to such a great find.

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello Dan,

Hope all is well.

This came up during the thread. Could you give us your assessment of the Marquardt book? I would be interested in your view.

Thanks.

Who Knows, as you certainly know, D&C 121 derives from Joseph’s letter to the Church at Quincy, Illinois 20 March 1839.

The section that Kevin missed in his assessment originally read:

“the dispensation of the fullness of times according to that which was ordained in the midst of the councyl [sic.] of the eternal God of all other Gods before this word…” see Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, revised edition, pg. 437.

Hope that helps,

--DB

I believe both section 121 and 122 are derived from that (very long) letter, which he wrote while in Liberty Jail. When I worked for the church, a guy in my department was tasked with reading through all the editions of the Book of Mormon and the D&C to see where and when changes had occurred. He said it was next to impossible to get at an original text of the D&C revelations because there weren't any original manuscripts and all the revelations had
undergone extensive revision.

I'm sure that's true. I own a copy of Signature Book's Joseph Smith Revelations: Text and Commentary by H. Michael Marquardt. He probably does as good as job as possible at reconstructing the originals, but we should ask Dan.

[The Stig]

Danny Boy,

What a pleasure it is to hear from you again!

Now let us briefly review the thread in question, and thereby put this dispute to rest, once and for all. Here is the pertinent portion of my initial post:

On page 114 of Dan Vogel’s Joseph Smith -- The Making of A Prophet, he writes:

Among the holdings of the LDS Church archives in Salt Lake City is an undated page in Oliver Cowdery’s hand that is identified, similar to the document in the Community of Christ archives, as “Characters on the Book of Mormon.” 22 This document bears four symbols not present on the Anthon transcript, suggesting that Smith may have prepared more than one set of characters or that the Anthon fragment was detached from a larger document.

Footnote 22 reads:

22. Original in LDS Church Archives, catalogued among Joseph Smith’s Egyptian papers.

According to my research, there is no such document among the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers. And therefore I am led to believe that this citation is completely inaccurate …

Here is the link:
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208040422

Our readers will note that I have deliberately bolded the word citation. Nowhere was it ever suggested that you had “invented” any document out of thin air – only that you inaccurately described the contents of the document and that you didn’t have any idea where it was actually located within the archives, and that your citation thereof was inaccurate.

Was it a big deal? Absolutely not. Indeed, the thread was started for the sole purpose of jerking your chain a little – an objective that it achieved with notable success.

Eventually I did your research for you and identified where the document in question was actually located:

After consulting again with my contact who has access to protected materials in the Church Archives, I hereby provide this report on the smoldering issue of the document referenced in endnote 22 of chapter 8 of Dan Vogel’s Joseph Smith - The Making of a Prophet.

The document in question is: Ms d 3408 fd 4.

According to the Church Historian’s Office, this document is not now and, to the best of their knowledge, has never been associated with or catalogued with the Joseph Smith Egyptian papers.

A photo of the document was included on a microfilm dated 09/14/1956 that was pirated from the CHO. The microfilm in question contains a hodge podge of various historical documents. Contrary to some reports, the microfilm does NOT contain the entire collection of the Joseph Smith Egyptian papers. Neither W. W. Phelps’ Ms. #1, nor Willard Richards’ Ms. #4 are included on the film. Williams’ Ms. #2 appears in order, pages 1 – 4. Parrish’s Ms. #3 appears in the following page order: 5, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1. It appears that the film contains partial copies of both the bound and unbound Egyptian grammar papers, as well as some images of papyrus fragments, but obviously not those included in the Metropolitan Museum collection donated to the Church in 1967.

The so-called “Cowdery” document (Ms d 3408 fd 4) appeared on the microfilm between some pages of the Egyptian grammar documents and some fragments of Egyptian papyrus. Following the papyrus fragments are some documents written “in poorly-formed Arabic,” which were also never associated with nor catalogued with the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers. Also included in the microfilm are pages of a late-19th century Egyptian grammar written in German, and a mid-19th century Egyptian grammar written in French. Neither of these Egyptian grammars are associated with the Joseph Smith Egyptian papers, but originate from elsewhere in the archives.

It appears that someone produced a roll of microfilm containing objects of personal interest, rather than it being the product of a systematic archive of documents. The items appearing on the film were drawn from various locations in the archives.

A copy of this roll of microfilm was pirated from the Church Archives and it, or a copy of it, somehow ended up in the possession of the Tanners.

Contrary to popular belief, the document is not conclusively known to be in the hand of Oliver Cowdery. The phrase “made by Oliver” does appear on the document, but no orthographic analysis has ever been performed to determine the author of the handwriting appearing thereon.

The document in question does not, as reported in The Making of a Prophet, contain the title “Characters on the Book of Mormon”. That phrase is unique to a document in the hand of Frederick G. Williams (MS 4583 box 1 fd 5):

[IPB Image]

which contains characters similar to those written on Ms d 3408 fd 4.

In summary, despite my acknowledgment that his confusion concerning its location may have been influenced by the contents of the pirated Tanner microfilm described above, I will simply note, without elaboration, that Vogel’s description of the document contains inaccuracies and his endnote concerning its location is not accurate. Other than that, I draw no further conclusions regarding the factual accuracy of his book, nor the personal integrity of the author. Nor can it be shown that I ever did, notwithstanding the claims to the contrary made by Mr. Vogel and many of his supporters.

I might also note that, although my source for all of this information desires to remain unattributed, I will state that the individual in question is sufficiently authorized to obtain documents from the vault, including those referenced above. Said individual retrieved this day, Thursday, October 5, 2006, at my request, document Ms d 3408 fd 4. Said individual, at my request, also retrieved the microfilm in question and examined its contents, and immediately thereafter provided directly to me the information I have reported above. Anyone seeking to dispute the accuracy and reliability of my report is hereby invited to go to the Church Historian's Office in Salt Lake City, UT, to inquire for themselves. Anyone choosing to so do will find the information I have provided to be accurate in all its essential details, and according to the information I was given.

Link: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208044923

Therefore, Dan, let me publicly and contritely apologize for having brought to your attention that you had an inaccurate citation in your astonishingly ahistorical account of the life of Joseph Smith. Not only was the citation itself inaccurate, but your description of the document in question was inaccurate.

Now go fix your description of the document and the citation which references its location in order that at least something will be accurate in future editions of your psycho/fantasy biography of Joseph Smith -- and stop your freaking whining!

P.S. And while I’m cowering meekly in sackcloth and ashes, permit me to apologize for having e-mailed you as “William Schryver” (which is, oddly enough, the name on my birth certificate) while simultaneously engaging in spirited debates with you on the old FAIR message board (using the pseudonym of “Provis”) regarding your astoundingly unsupportable theories regarding the alleged evolution of the story of Joseph Smith’s first vision.

[_harmony]

P.S. And while I’m cowering meekly in sackcloth and ashes, permit me to apologize for having e-mailed you as “William Schryver” (which is, oddly enough, the name on my birth certificate) while simultaneously engaging in spirited debates with you on the old FAIR message board (using the pseudonym of “Provis”) regarding your astoundingly unsupportable theories regarding the alleged evolution of the story of Joseph Smith’s first vision.

No 20-something would have him, Scratch. He's simply too noxious.

[_Runtu]

Will,

Maybe you can clear something up. I've heard it said repeatedly that in your email correspondence with Dan Vogel, you represented yourself as someone who was going to make some sort of film about church-related issues? Is that true? And were you really making such a film?

I'm not making any accusations, as I've never exchanged words with you at any point. But I thought I'd give you a chance to respond, as your character has been called into question by a lot of people I know.