Jason_J

Jeffrey Bradshaw has recently come out with a book called "In God's Image and Likeness: Ancient and Modern Perspectives on the Book of Moses". This book is over 1000 pages long, and is a commentary on the Book of Moses, as well as covering various themes found therein, and draws on current biblical scholarship, as well as other ancient works. Now, I haven't read the Book of Moses yet (I'm tempted to do so, but I haven't finished the Book of Mormon yet! ), but it just fascinates me that a Book that critics claim was simply fabricated by Joseph Smith could draw such extensive commentary, including parallels in ancient writings ("including Near Eastern texts, early Old Testament manuscripts and translations, the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jewish and early Christian texts, Nag Hammadi and Gnostic writings, and primary documents from the Zoroastrian, Mandaean, Manichaean, and Islamic religious traditions") as well as modern biblical scholarship. As I've said in other threads: if Joseph Smith and/or his companions just "made it all up", they must have had an extensive library and an extensive knowledge of ancient writings, because it just doesn't make sense that one could find rich parallels between the JST and the above works if it wasn't inspired. Perhaps some may be interested in this book as they study the Old Testament this year. Interview With the Author

Ah okay. Manhattan seems to be the "hotspot" for LDS activity, moreso than the other boroughs of NYC (and of course the temple is there). Maybe I'll walk by the temple tomorrow to see what the area is like...

wow not one NYC area LDS on the forum? Guess I may become the first at some point

Can you demonstrate that the "rendering " in Moses 2, Abraham 4, KFD, etc. are so significantly different that they somehow change the conclusion that "Joseph got it right"?

One of the unique beliefs of the LDS faith is the belief that God created (or "organized") the universe from pre-existing material. Moses 3:5 also states that all things were first created spiritually before they were created physically. This is in contrast to the mainstream belief in "creatio ex nihilo", or creation from nothing, which posits that God did not use anything to create the universe, and that it is only God is eternal. In my reading of some recent scholarship, there seems to be more support for the LDS view of creation from pre-existent material than the traditional creation from nothing. A number of Biblical scholars state that the earliest reference to creation from nothing is in the 2nd Century BC 2 Maccabees 7:28 (2 Maccabees is part of the Deuterocanonicals, which are books seen as inspired by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches), however a number of recent scholars do not believe that it refers to creation ex nihilo in its commonly understood meaning, and instead believe that creation from nothing did not arise in Judeo-Christian theology until the late 1st to 2nd Century AD. In his book "The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1", Mark S. Smith (Skirball Professor of Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at New York University) shows that the King James Version gives an erroneous translation of Genesis 1:1, which can lead one to believe that God created from nothing, and/or that creation began in an absolute beginning (i.e. nothing was happening before "the beginning" of Genesis 1). Instead, the NRSV and the NAB (the Catholic translation used officially in the USA) give it as "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth" (or some variant) instead of the absolute "In the beginning, God created..." of the KJV. Smith also states that "creatio ex nihilo is not the view of Genesis 1". Blake Ostler also touches on the issue of creatio ex nihilo in the context of ancient Judeo-Christian thought in his book "Exploring Mormon Thought-Of God and Gods", as well as his FARMS review article "Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought". From his book: "Joseph Smith's observation that the verb "bara" means to organize, rather than to create out of absolutely nothing, has received a great deal of scholarly support. The primary meaning of the verb bara is to cut, divide, or separate. As James Atwell observed, the verb bara 'has a deliberate and considered significance when it occurs in P [the priestly document], but this falls short of creatio ex nihilo. It is best understood in the context of alternative verbs 'separate' and 'make'." There is simply no pre-2nd century AD reference to anything resembling creation ex nihilo. Traditional Christians must accept that the Bible does not explicitly state creation from nothing. In the original Greek of the 2nd century BC 2 Maccabees 7:28 (again, the earliest supposed reference to creation ex nihilo), scholars assert that it is not necessarily talking about creation from nothing. Gerhard May, in his work "Creatio Ex Nihilo" states: "The best known, constantly brought forward as the earliest evidence of the conceptual formulation of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, is 2 Maccabees 7:28. The need for caution in evaluating this is apparent from the context in which there is talk of creation 'out of nothing'. There is here no theoretical disquisition on the nature of the creation process, but a paraenetic reference to God's creative power; the mother of the seven martyrs calls her youngest son to steadfastness by holding before his eyes that God, who has shown his might by creating the world and mankind 'out of non-being', will, 'in the time of mercy' awake the righteous from death. A position on the problem of matter is clearly not to be expected in this context. The text implies no more than the conception that the world came into existence through the sovereign creative act of God, and that it previously was not there...That the formulation found in the second book of Maccabees in no way necessitates the thought of the absolute unconditionality of the creation, is also clear from an informative parallel in Xenophon. He says in his "Memorabilia" that parents 'bring forth their children out of non-being'. Naturally that does not mean that the children come to be out of nothing, and it will occur to no one to understand the statement in terms of a creatio ex nihilo." From these and other references, we see that Joseph Smith somehow had knowledge of a deeper reading of the Biblical texts, getting to a more ancient understanding of the creation of the universe than the traditional "creation ex nihilo". 2 Maccabees 7:28 (NAB )- "I beg you, child, to look at the heavens and the earth and see all that is in them; then you will know that God did not make them out of existing things; and in the same way the human race came into existence." USCCB - NAB - 2 Maccabees 7 Preview of "Creatio Ex Nihilo" by Gerhard May Creatio Ex Nihilo - Google Books

Oh yes, I fully agree (there was actually a similar discussion on this very topic over on MADB ). I also agree with Blake Ostler in that when many Trinitarians attempt to describe the Trinity, they end up in so-called heretical views, such as modalism or Arianism. Therefore when some non-Trinitarians, such as LDS, describe the Trinity as told to them by self-described Trinitarians, they may actually describe something that is not the Trinity (which is also why I tell Trinitarians to not use analogies, as that only confuses others (and themselves) even more). This is perhaps what happened with Elder Callister, who presents the Trinity in modalistic terms in his book. But I digress.

Right, this thread was not necessarily about truth, but about how I, as a non-LDS, see Mormonism as plausible, in contrast to what many critics may typically say. The things that I mentioned in the OP are issues that I believe lead one to at least consider the LDS faith, and not simply dismiss it immediately as something invented by one or more men in the 1800s. Also, my mentioning of what Elder Holland stated on the Trinity was not on his views of the Godhead. In a previous General Conference, he made references to the traditional/mainstream understanding of the Trinity that were erroneous (as did Elder Callister in another Conference, as well as in his book "The Inevitable Apostasy and the Promised Restoration", which I have). Anyway, my point was just that, while I may not have agreed with Elder Holland's delivery of the talk in question (nor in his understanding of what Trinitarians believe on the Trinity), I do agree with his premise: that despite multiple attempted explanations, critics have been unable to dismantle the Book of Mormon, which also leads to its plausibility, it being what it claims to be.

Catholics do not have temples either. Catholics (and Orthodox) tend to see our individual churches as temple-equivalents, with many Russian Orthodox referring to their churches as "temples" specifically. All of our churches have tabernacles/Holy of Holies where the consecrated Eucharist (which Catholics and Orthodox believe becomes the body and blood of Christ) is kept, so Catholics and Orthodox believe that there is a special presence of God in all of our churches. There is an altar, where the sacrifice is offered (note that Catholics and Orthodox do not believe that Jesus Christ is re-sacrificed. Instead, the belief is that the once and for all sacrifice on the cross is "re-presented" there. The sacrifice of Christ transcends time and space, therefore the Mass and Divine Liturgy are a participation in that sacrifice). Roman Catholic churches have fonts of water which people can use to purify themselves upon entering the church (this is done by dipping your hand in the water and making the sign of the cross on your body). The belief that the temple is a place of ascent to God, where Heaven meets Earth, is also found in these churches, with icons, statues, and paintings of angels and other Heavenly persons. Incense is used in these churches as well. There are priestly vestments worn. Anointing occurs in these churches. So, while Catholics and Orthodox do not have separate structures called properly "temples", they do believe that churches absorbed many aspects of OT temple theology, which can be seen in the building structure and areas, vestments, and the rituals. Hope that helps!

Thanks, yes there are quite a few wards and branches in the NYC area, especially in Manhattan. If I convert, I'd most likely be going to the YSA ward in Manhattan. Any NYC area LDS on this forum?

Thank you Tyler for sharing. I have my Book of Mormon out right now, I just need to start reading it I will read Mosiah 2-6 tonight.

Thanks Pam. I did see Elder Holland's talk in October (I watched the last two Conferences to see how they "work"). While I don't necessarily agree with his...delivery, and I'm not a huge fan of Elder Holland (yet), mostly because of his erroneous presentation of the Trinity in another talk, I fully agree with his argument. If the Book of Mormon was fabricated, it should have been deconstructed completely by now. Critics must come up with varying explanations to explain it away. The fact that it has complex literary structures is also interesting, especially because many if not most of these occur outside of the sections that supposedly were copied from the KJV. I don't think any other recent scripture by any other group comes close. The JW version of the Bible has been shown to be false and simply made to support their own false views (that have no support in ancient Judaism and Christianity as the LDS faith does). Scientology's Dianetics does not produce the things it claims. In contrast, the Book of Mormon cannot be completely deconstructed, has very interesting literary structure, and more evidences are increasing its plausibility with time.

I am currently Catholic, and have been interested in the LDS faith for a number of years now, on and off. I think that many traditional Christians dismiss Mormonism for a number of reasons (whether valid or not): polygamy, priesthood ban, exaltation, Godhead, "new kid on the block", the Book of Mormon, etc. I think that a number of those issues do present "problems" for me at this time, but I think there is something that critics never really address. When one reads the recent scholarship by LDS (and non-LDS) scholars on Mormon related topics, I find that I just have to wonder: how could Joseph Smith and his "associates" have known so much about ancient Christianity (including things not accepted by the early Church, perhaps due to an apostasy)? Moreso than any new religion, Mormonism seems to be able to reference the writings of people from ancient Judaism and Christianity in support of its own views. LDS on other forums frequently refer to modern scholarly works that I have recently purchased, such as "Origins of Biblical Monotheism" by Smith, and the works of Margaret Barker, especially "The Great Angel-A Study of Israel's Second God". Blake Ostler puts much of the work on the views of Deity in ancient Israel, the Ugaritic texts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, creatio ex nihilo, etc. into a LDS context. So, while critics are quick to say that Joseph Smith made it all up (with help from his associates, who they may see were familiar with the works of others), they don't realize how much work it must have taken to create such a complex belief system with so many ancient parallels. Joseph Smith and his associates must have had huge libraries and must have been so well read to do this. It simply doesn't make sense, which is why I am seriously considering the LDS church at this point.

How active is the LDS church in the New York City area (specifically the 5 boroughs and Long Island)? I live in Long Island and work in Manhattan. I've seen missionaries in Queens probably twice recently. It seems as if the church in NYC is pretty diverse, and even opened up a nice new meetinghouse in Harlem recently. Is the church growing in this area? Also, I know that there are a number of..."tourist" sites relevant to the LDS church throughout the USA, such as in SLC, Palmyra, and temples like Washington DC. Are there any sites for visitors or investigators in NYC? Does the New York Temple have a visitors' area (I'm pretty sure it doesn't have a visitors center but the temple actually is only part of the building, so I'm wondering if the rest of it has like displays or anything for non-members)? I'd love to hear from some NYC LDS.

Hello everyone! My name is Jason. I'm from New York (just outside of the city), and have considered conversion to the LDS church for some time (I've had my copy of the Book of Mormon since 2002, though I've only read about 3 pages), and strongly considered conversion less than a year ago. There are many things that I love about the LDS faith, however certain things about my Catholic faith pull me back. I'm here to hopefully dialogue with converts, particularly those that were Catholic, and see how they addressed the issues that I have. A little about myself: I was baptized Catholic as a child, and was (and still am somewhat) pretty active. I taught 8th grade religion class, was a lector (a lay person that reads from the scriptures at Mass) and a Eucharistic Minister (a lay person that helps the priest and deacon distribute the Eucharist). I went to Georgetown University (a Catholic/Jesuit college), and was part of the Campus Ministry for two years, until other activities began to take up more of my time. I'm pretty well read on all things Catholicism, and still love much about it. At this point, I think that certain areas of the LDS faith make more sense, and/or are more Biblically based. I have begun to read the latest Biblical scholarship on a number of issues which tend to support more LDS conclusions than traditional Christian conclusions (I recently purchased "The Origins of Biblical Monotheism" and "The Priestly Vision of Genesis I", both by Mark S. Smith, "The Great Angel-A Study of Israel's Second God" by Margaret Barker, and "Exploring Mormon Thought: Of God and Gods" by Blake Ostler). I guess we'll see where all of this leads me!