Difference between revisions of "Talk:Matt 6:11-15"

Revision as of 00:15, 6 April 2007

I'd like suggestions as to why the JST is only in the Bible & not included in the Book of Mormon. This seems like a great argument against the divinity of the Book of Mormon, that it excludes Joseph Smith's changes in Matthew and adds the questionable last line.--Nanette 01:05, 4 April 2007 (CEST)

Hey Nanette, I remember reading somewhere on this question. There has to be a FARMS article on this question somewhere. I'll try to go looking for it. In the meantime here are some thoughts. First it seems clear that Book of Mormon quotations of the bible are often in the words of the KJV. Maybe the reason for this is so that it is clear that the Bible is being quoted. The translation into English (into the language of the people at the time Joseph translated into English) makes the connection the the Bible by using the same wording as the Bible. If you are Joseph Smith the translator the way you do this is by picking up the KJV and reading it. Of course, this ignores the fact that there are still a lot of differences from the KJV. This is hardly a complete answer, but I hope it is something of a start for thinking about why there would be errors from the KJV reproduced in the Book of Mormon. --Matthew Faulconer 17:07, 4 April 2007 (CEST)

"This seems like a great argument against the divinity of the Book of Mormon." Only if one works on the presupposition that Jesus can't say one thing in the New World and another in the Old World. If apologetics, as Hugh Nibley pointed out again and again, really only amounts to showing that the gospel is not "impossible," then all apologetics can do is to say that it is not impossible that God would be behind these two texts, however they turned out. There is hardly an absolute argument against the divinity of the Book of Mormon here, one that confirms an undeniable impossibility at work. We simply have the task of interpreting. --Joe Spencer 18:09, 4 April 2007 (CEST)

Not surprisingly, I agree with Joe (I need to try to find more to disagree with him over so I'm not just his lackey! And I'm sure Joe would enjoy nothing more, it's just I'm not sure I'm up to the taks since it'll take me a lot of work to think carefully enough about something to truly disagree over!). One thought, which I'm likely stealing from someone else (I think we discussed this a bit on the blog), is that this is a good invitation to think about the different audiences that Jesus was addressing. For example, in the New World, it seems all or at least most of the wicked were destroyed whereas there might've been more unrighteous lurkers which prevented Jesus from teaching the most-celestial version of the sermon.... --RobertC 19:37, 4 April 2007 (CEST)

Good answers, Gentlemen, however, only Matthew's really touches the real question here. The point is that the NT version scholarship believes the additions were added by a scribe, a human error, not God. So, unless the point was to make it MATCH the KJV, which I can't really buy, then the BofM version was likewise "tampered with" since it is per NT pre JST. I think it's a perfectly adequate springboard for anti's to use in saying JS didn't receive revelation but rather plagerized...now this is based upon his plagerizing being BAD. I think plagerizing under the direction of the Spirit is fine and just an economy of effort, kinda like evolution. I just wonder why bother allowing the discrepancy when the lost pages per Martin Harris incident was so well resolved to prevent such discrepancies--now I know they're not exactly the same, but somewhat similar. You can see the connection, I'm sure.

Joe, your points about the different audiences are worthwhile and I see that reflected in the sermons at large, but in this prayer I think the point is not relevant because of the "scribe" factor.

Matthew, I would GREATLY appreciate any further LDS scholarship you have on this issue before Sunday's mtg. (or after). --Nanette 20:23, 4 April 2007 (CEST)

Let me restate my point, because I'm not sure it was caught. I'm not (entirely) suggesting that this provides us with an interesting place to think about audiences, but that one only puts the text in question when one regards it critically (passes judgment on it). Over against this, I understand the text to be calling me into question, to be passing judgment on me, to be critically regarding me. The reason this passage provides an impetus to studying contexts for the teachings of Jesus is because it calls me to study how Jesus speaks to us, a call I might well miss if I am calling it to play a role in some critical/"objective" scheme. --Joe Spencer 03:01, 5 April 2007 (CEST)

Nanette, I think a good place to start to think about your question is Royal Skousen's post on T&S. At heart I think this question is about 1) what the Book of Mormon translation is, and 2) what to make of the KJV. For me this raises more questions than answers, but I love it. (Though I'm not sure what to make of the black and white distinction between revealed and human behind 4f). I'll keep looking. This is an interesting question. Anyone want to ask Skousen? I think he would have an interesting view on this question. --Matthew Faulconer 05:35, 6 April 2007 (CEST) and also this FARMS article. Good stuff but I'd prefer a direct discussion of the topic rather than a response to an attack which by nature then turns into a defense. --Matthew Faulconer 06:15, 6 April 2007 (CEST)