Was The True Gospel Restored By Joseph Smith (acts 3: 19-21)

[Jason]

... anyone familiar with Biblical scholarship and what warrants a noteworthy "parallel" might be less likely to dismiss these as insignificant.

I think some of those are very interesting. But as you noted, they are not proof. Nor do they match up enough to grant them an exact parallel. If Moses was a recreation of Enoch, then I would expect better than this.

[Doctor Steuss]

<div class='quotemain'>

... anyone familiar with Biblical scholarship and what warrants a noteworthy "parallel" might be less likely to dismiss these as insignificant.

I think some of those are very interesting. But as you noted, they are not proof. Nor do they match up enough to grant them an exact parallel. If Moses was a recreation of Enoch, then I would expect better than this.

Are you familiar with what warrants a "parallel" between Enochic literature and the NT? They are far, far less striking. I think there is a Book of Enoch available from Archive Publishers that’s pretty cheap. The intro is extremely dated, but it does cover some of the NT/Enoch parallels (besides the obvious Jude quote).

Edited to add:

I'll try to get a few of the Enoch/NT parallels posted in a bit.

[Jason]

I've had 1st Enoch for a long time. What I'm saying is that I'm not impressed by the parallels. There are a few which do interest me, as I said, but I see more coincidence than divine inspiration.

Are these "parallels" from 1,2 or 3rd Enoch?

[Doctor Steuss]

I'll try to get a few of the Enoch/NT parallels posted in a bit.

I'm going to need my library for this one. So, it will be a while before I get around to it (unfortunately, I don't have the patience to dig through the crap google responses in trying to find what I'm after)...

Are these "parallels" from 1,2 or 3rd Enoch?

All of the above (and some Dead Sea Scroll Enochic Literature). I tend to think parallels from 1st Enoch are more impressive since it was the least likely to be available to Joseph (as it wasn't discovered until after the production of Book of Moses, et.al.).

[Jason]

No problem.

What I think bothers me is that Enoch dates from about the same period as the dead sea scrolls (give or take a few decades), and yet the similarities between them and the OT are nearly identical, whereas Enoch and Moses are vastly different.

Do you see where I'm going here?

[Doctor Steuss]

No problem.

What I think bothers me is that Enoch dates from about the same period as the dead sea scrolls (give or take a few decades), and yet the similarities between them and the OT are nearly identical, whereas Enoch and Moses are vastly different.

Do you see where I'm going here?

IIRC, 1st Enoch dates to about the 200 BCE. Which does make one wonder why it held prominence and influence for the NT writers. One way to reconcile this is to see the additions that date it to this period as redactions (much like the wealth of things added/subtracted during Josiah's reform and the multiple "Isaiahs" [i.e. the later portion of Isaiah dating to far after Isaiah's life]).

Enoch and Moses don't claim to be the same thing though. There are only two chapters that mainly claim to be a "lost" book of Enoch. Thus, having parallels (however small) with Enochic literature would be expected, but in no way would they be expected to be identical. I don't think the themes of those few chapters are "vastly different" in the least when compared to Enochic mythos and literature as a whole. They might be different when compared to one particular book or apocryphal writing that purports to be Enochic, but when taken as a whole, I think it tends to match up quite nicely (I do however have LDS goggles on, so I readily admit my bias when looking at these sorts of things).

I do see where you're going though, and I agree. I see the same differences between Yeshua ben Yoseph and the Israelite Messianic prophecies.

[Jason]

Enoch and Moses don't claim to be the same thing though. There are only two chapters that mainly claim to be a "lost" book of Enoch. Thus, having parallels (however small) with Enochic literature would be expected, but in no way would they be expected to be identical.

Ok, so we need to identify the two chapters of Moses which are a "recreation" of Enoch's "lost" book, and then compare those to existant Enochian literature.

One problem I see here is that no single text fits here. Likely the Enochian literature we have was not authored by the "historical" Enoch. So what we have is a restoration of an apocryphal author.

Unless the mystery author was named Enoch, or a reincarnation of Enoch?

I do see where you're going though, and I agree. I see the same differences between Yeshua ben Yoseph and the Israelite Messianic prophecies.

A much better discussion worthy of it's own thread IMO. (I rather enjoy the "cosmic Christ" of St. Paul, who seemingly never wrote of a "living" Christ.

[Doctor Steuss]

Ok, so we need to identify the two chapters of Moses which are a "recreation" of Enoch's "lost" book, and then compare those to existant Enochian literature.

One problem I see here is that no single text fits here. Likely the Enochian literature we have was not authored by the "historical" Enoch. So what we have is a restoration of an apocryphal author.

Unless the mystery author was named Enoch, or a reincarnation of Enoch?

It is quite a pickle, and a substantial "problem" that you raise. But, I tend to look at it as oral traditions that were preserved by different people, and eventually written down at different times and places by different people. World views, paradigms, local culture, etc., inevitably found their way into each text; however, the overall themes remained. I tend to have a much more fluid concept of "scripture" (including the OT and NT) than most -- I'm often branded as a heretic by LDS even. Enochic literature may have even been compiled in a similar way as the DH suggests the OT was compiled.

I think that even some of Joseph's world-view made its way into the Book of Moses. Although it was a restoration, it was a restoration through Joseph. My friend "structurecop" who participates on another board recently pointed out how the concepts of "hell" in the Book of Mormon more closely resembles 19th Century Christian thought than that of sheol and hades in the milieu of ancient Israel.

So, parallels of basic themes and doctrines would be expected (IMO) but overall nitty-gritty details wouldn't necessarily be expected due to the way the texts had been transmitted over time.

A much better discussion worthy of it's own thread IMO. (I rather enjoy the "cosmic Christ" of St. Paul, who seemingly never wrote of a "living" Christ.

I used to correspond with a Rabbi many (or not-so-many) years ago. One thing that he zinged me with in one letter is that the concept of a "Second Coming" is completely foreign to Messianic prophecies. I got him back though by noting the parallels between Joseph Smith and the prophecies for a Messiah ben Joseph.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on the “cosmic Christ” vs. a “living Christ” one of these days. I always enjoy reading people’s thoughts/beliefs/expositions on the New Testament. I’ve never had the desire to delve into the NT much. For whatever reason, I just can’t seem to walk away from the OT and apocryphal writings.

Just call me “Heretic.”

Edited to add:

Moses chapters 6 & 7 (mostly just verses 25-51 in chapter 6) are the areas that should match up with Enochic literature.

[Jason]

I think that even some of Joseph's world-view made its way into the Book of Moses. Although it was a restoration, it was a restoration through Joseph. My friend "structurecop" who participates on another board recently pointed out how the concepts of "hell" in the Book of Mormon more closely resembles 19th Century Christian thought than that of sheol and hades in the milieu of ancient Israel.

So, parallels of basic themes and doctrines would be expected (IMO) but overall nitty-gritty details wouldn't necessarily be expected due to the way the texts had been transmitted over time.

So Joseph Smith was a medium, viewing the Akashic record and did the best he could?

[Doctor Steuss]

So Joseph Smith was a medium, viewing the Akashic record and did the best he could?

He was an imperfect and uneducated man. G-d picked up a lot of slack, but not all of it. So yes, he did the best he could with G-d's help.

This might not sit well with many LDS, and I don't want you to think this is the "official" way of looking at it. But, I do tend to think that in all scripture (both ancient and modern) the human often finds its way into the divine.

Infallibility is something that the LDS have never given to prophets. I just take it one step further and allow for some of the fallibility to find its way into the infallible word of G-d.

[Jason]

Infallibility is something that the LDS have never given to prophets. I just take it one step further and allow for some of the fallibility to find its way into the infallible word of G-d.

Heretic. B)

[Doctor Steuss]

<div class='quotemain'>

Infallibility is something that the LDS have never given to prophets. I just take it one step further and allow for some of the fallibility to find its way into the infallible word of G-d.

Heretic. B)

LOL! I know, I know. A while back, my friend "selek" on another board pointed out to me that one of my beliefs is one of the "top heresies" listed by Joseph F. Smith.

It takes me a lot to maintain a belief in G-d. Sometimes that means that I have to be viewed as a heretic by some… or most.

At least living in Las Vegas has prepared me for my eventual stay in hell.

[Jason]

I don't mind being a heretic. Frankly, everyone in my church is an admitted heretic, and we're quite proud of that fact.

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Infallibility is something that the LDS have never given to prophets. I just take it one step further and allow for some of the fallibility to find its way into the infallible word of G-d.

Heretic. B)

LOL! I know, I know. A while back, my friend "selek" on another board pointed out to me that one of my beliefs is one of the "top heresies" listed by Joseph F. Smith.

It takes me a lot to maintain a belief in G-d. Sometimes that means that I have to be viewed as a heretic by some… or most.

At least living in Las Vegas has prepared me for my eventual stay in hell.

[Doctor Steuss]

Good morning Jason,

I finally have a few of the Enoch / NT parallels. I unfortunately didn't have my Barker book as my brother has it, so I'm forced to use a dated source (although it is dated, AFAIK, they still hold within current Biblical scholarship [anyone have a CD of the Anchor Bible Dictionary? Searching for this junk in the non indexed physical one is near impossible]). The Enoch passages are Richard Laurence's (the late Archbishop of Cashel) translation.

Enoch XXII. 10,12

(The Angel Raphael addressing Enoch in the region of the dead) “Here their souls are separated… by a chasm.”

Luke XVI. 26

(Abraham addressing Dives from the region of the blessed) “Between us and you there is a great gulf fixed.”

--------

Enoch XLVI. 2

“This is the Son of man… who will reveal all the treasures of that which is concealed.”

Col. II. 3

“In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”

--------

Enoch XLV. 3

“In that day shall the Elect One sit upon a throne of glory, and shall choose their conditions and countless habitations.”

Matt. XXV. 31,32

“Then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; and before him shall be gathered all nations; and he shall separate them one from another.”

--------

Enoch XLVIII

“He has preserved the lot of the righteous, because they have hated and rejected this world of iniquity, and have detested all its works and ways in the name of the Lord of spirits.”

Gal. I. 4

“Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father.”

[darrel]

I wish to again apologize to this forum for my unfriendly and unjustified comments on this forum. I am here to learn from others and share as I have understanding of Gospel related topics. I would like to participate as a novice and not an advanced scholar. I certainly do not have the intellectual prowess to match the great minds I observe by other learned posters. Again my apologies. (PS yes my previous post came up as sad and I don't know why. Maybe the moderators could help me find out. I don't want to be guilty of double posting.)

[Doctor Steuss]

I wish to again apologize to this forum for my unfriendly and unjustified comments on this forum. I am here to learn from others and share as I have understanding of Gospel related topics. I would like to participate as a novice and not an advanced scholar. I certainly do not have the intellectual prowess to match the great minds I observe by other learned posters. Again my apologies. (PS yes my previous post came up as sad and I don't know why. Maybe the moderators could help me find out. I don't want to be guilty of double posting.)

We are all novices. We are just at different levels in the wide spectrum.

The only thing that separates a novice from a scholar is ego. Sometimes the person that doesn’t tout “intellectual prowess” is the very person whom can give the most enlightening insights.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

[snipe123]

What evidences do we have and what discoveries have been made to show that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and that the Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has the full gospel upon the earth today as taught by Jesus Christ?

The historical fact I find most interesting that lends support to Joseph Smiths claim to have restored The Gospel, is the early Christian belief in salvation for the dead and practice of baptism for the dead in the 1st centery A.D.. Apart from it's brief mention in 2 Corinthians(which I hardly consider as proof that it was done, just an indicator...a mere mention...very brief!) Some of the Apostolic Fathers not only acknowledge that the ordinance was practised, but they also give their commentaries on the subject...going so far as to say that the apostles themselves were baptised vacariously for a dead parent...as time goes on through the centuries, (3rd and 5th)other writers attempt to explain the practice away and scold (16th century)the early Christians for doing it...prayers for the dead was instituted eventually and is still practiced by some Catholics(not an expert on that subject so I will not comment further on it)...the knowledge of Baptism for the dead had been lost and corrupted and now was being explained away and denounced as heresy...

I find it interesting that Christian writers and theologians who were centuries removed from Christ and his apostles would have the audacity to reprimand the early Christians, some of which had actually heard Christ and the Apostles teachings first hand...If they were the earliest Christians who heard the Gospel from the mouth of the Lord, then certainly they had the Gospel right, not Christian apologists centuries down the road who had become taiinted by Greek philosphy and hellenistic ideals...Not going to try to give a complete account of the subject, nor do I consider it the strongest proof of the mission of Joseph Smith, just wanted to give it as an example since it is something I find interesting...and is a subject of personal study...not an expert!

Mormons practice baptism for the dead and as far as I know they are the only people who do, with the exception of the ancient Christians just mentioned...

[Jason]

The historical fact I find most interesting that lends support to Joseph Smiths claim to have restored The Gospel, is the early Christian belief in salvation for the dead and practice of baptism for the dead in the 1st centery A.D.. Apart from it's brief mention in 2 Corinthians(which I hardly consider as proof that it was done, just an indicator...a mere mention...very brief!) Some of the Apostolic Fathers not only acknowledge that the ordinance was practised, but they also give their commentaries on the subject...going so far as to say that the apostles themselves were baptised vacariously for a dead parent...as time goes on through the centuries, (3rd and 5th)other writers attempt to explain the practice away and scold (16th century)the early Christians for doing it...prayers for the dead was instituted eventually and is still practiced by some Catholics(not an expert on that subject so I will not comment further on it)...the knowledge of Baptism for the dead had been lost and corrupted and now was being explained away and denounced as heresy...

I find it interesting that Christian writers and theologians who were centuries removed from Christ and his apostles would have the audacity to reprimand the early Christians, some of which had actually heard Christ and the Apostles teachings first hand...If they were the earliest Christians who heard the Gospel from the mouth of the Lord, then certainly they had the Gospel right, not Christian apologists centuries down the road who had become taiinted by Greek philosphy and hellenistic ideals...Not going to try to give a complete account of the subject, nor do I consider it the strongest proof of the mission of Joseph Smith, just wanted to give it as an example since it is something I find interesting...and is a subject of personal study...not an expert!

Mormons practice baptism for the dead and as far as I know they are the only people who do, with the exception of the ancient Christians just mentioned...

References please?

[snipe123]

<div class='quotemain'>

The historical fact I find most interesting that lends support to Joseph Smiths claim to have restored The Gospel, is the early Christian belief in salvation for the dead and practice of baptism for the dead in the 1st centery A.D.. Apart from it's brief mention in 2 Corinthians(which I hardly consider as proof that it was done, just an indicator...a mere mention...very brief!) Some of the Apostolic Fathers not only acknowledge that the ordinance was practised, but they also give their commentaries on the subject...going so far as to say that the apostles themselves were baptised vacariously for a dead parent...as time goes on through the centuries, (3rd and 5th)other writers attempt to explain the practice away and scold (16th century)the early Christians for doing it...prayers for the dead was instituted eventually and is still practiced by some Catholics(not an expert on that subject so I will not comment further on it)...the knowledge of Baptism for the dead had been lost and corrupted and now was being explained away and denounced as heresy...

I find it interesting that Christian writers and theologians who were centuries removed from Christ and his apostles would have the audacity to reprimand the early Christians, some of which had actually heard Christ and the Apostles teachings first hand...If they were the earliest Christians who heard the Gospel from the mouth of the Lord, then certainly they had the Gospel right, not Christian apologists centuries down the road who had become taiinted by Greek philosphy and hellenistic ideals...Not going to try to give a complete account of the subject, nor do I consider it the strongest proof of the mission of Joseph Smith, just wanted to give it as an example since it is something I find interesting...and is a subject of personal study...not an expert!

Mormons practice baptism for the dead and as far as I know they are the only people who do, with the exception of the ancient Christians just mentioned...

References please?

So it seems my centuries were slightly off, but the jist of what I was saying remains...haha...was on my lunch break when I wrote this post and could not look up references at the time...It is late, so in looking up my references briefly here, here is one: Hugh Nibley has an entire chapter on the subject in his book: Mormonism and early Christianity...among the folks quoted on the subject of Baptism for the dead are: Tertullian, Epiphanius, St Ambros...The quotes are to lengthy to type out this evening...He also quotes from various non canonical books on the subject...Wikipedia has a very huge ammount of resource material on the subjec that I still need to delve into that I only recently discovered:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_for_the_dead

...a segment of the opening paragraph is pretty intriguing...

"The practice [baptism for the dead] is referred to in The New Testament (1 Cor. 15:29) but was forbidden by the Orthodox Church in the 4th Century and is not practiced in modern mainstream Christianity. " Granted, WIkipedia is not the end of all opinion and scholarly research, but I am sure there is a lot of source material referenced...

Now as I said, I am not an expert, and I should say I don't really feel the need to have a debate here, but it is a subject that interests me so I will continue to do more research, and in the meantime, so can you...:) Hope you have access to Nibleys book, and certainly the article in Wikipedia would be a good launching pad for your research...

[Jason]

Interesting stuff. I thought the parallels between baptism for the dead, a requiem Mass, and purgatory were enlightening.

Yet outside of Paul, we have a dearth of information for a few centuries. That's interesting as well.

[Snow]

I wish to again apologize to this forum for my unfriendly and unjustified comments on this forum. I am here to learn from others and share as I have understanding of Gospel related topics. I would like to participate as a novice and not an advanced scholar. I certainly do not have the intellectual prowess to match the great minds I observe by other learned posters. Again my apologies. (PS yes my previous post came up as sad and I don't know why. Maybe the moderators could help me find out. I don't want to be guilty of double posting.)

Match the great minds here?

Maybe if you take mine, multiply it by Jason's, Elphaba's, and Prison Chaplain's brains, and then add 100, you might have a brain that can think about chewing gum and maintaining a heartbeat at the same time. (that's a joke folks) For the most part, we're just average Joes who hope to learn something by bantering back and forth - though I can tell you that I am looked upon at Church as very knowledgeable regarding the Church - not that I know that much but what I do know, I picked up in large measure because of this message board or studying doctrine and history in order to argue points here on this board.

Here's a hint: post defensively. Don't make any claims or apparent statements of fact that you cannot support. I bluff it every once in awhile thinking that I can do my research and back my claim latter but it far better to do your research first.

Happy posting das.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]I can tell you that I am looked upon at Church as very knowledgeable regarding the Church [...]

One of these days I'm going to cull such esteemed recognition from those within my ward. Until then, I'll just be the smarmy fellow in the back pew that attends church once every few months.

[Jason]

In my years in the Church, it was my experience that it doesn't take very much to be the most knowledgeable person in the Ward. Usually there's always one or two people who actually study church doctrine around, and if you read one or two more books than the other guy, you're numero uno.

Oddly enough, in Mormonism, even if a woman is the most knowledgeable, she is never the most knowledgeable. Does that view hold true in the experiences of others?

[Doctor Steuss]

Oddly enough, in Mormonism, even if a woman is the most knowledgeable, she is never the most knowledgeable. Does that view hold true in the experiences of others?

Knowledge is knowledge, regardless of what equipment is in the pants. (Jan Shipps anyone?)

Now, if you're speaking of opinions, then I'd agree that the opinions of a man are taken as more authoritative (in general) than that of a woman. However, I think this is an unfortunate byproduct of American sociological constructs as opposed to a specific aspect of “Mormonism.”

[Jason]

Now, if you're speaking of opinions, then I'd agree that the opinions of a man are taken as more authoritative (in general) than that of a woman. However, I think this is an unfortunate byproduct of American sociological constructs as opposed to a specific aspect of “Mormonism.”

I think the Mormon prohibition on women holding the Priesthood is the reason for this "continuance" today, if we're asking for opinions.