A while ago I posted a story about a preacher from the Assembly of God who was rather argumentative and confrontational. This story is from the opposite side, where a missionary was the one who was argumentative and confrontational, with a similar negative effect on the person being argued with. I'll spoil the ending now and say that it is never a good thing to be argumentative and confrontational when you are supposedly a representative of God.
Coincidentally this happened in the same area where I had my confrontation with the preacher. The missionary I was with was not my companion, we were on what is called splits or exchanges where another missionary companionship comes to our area and we split up and go with an Elder who is not our companion to work in our area for a day or an afternoon.
Because I was the one who knew the area I was in charge of determining where to go. After leaving our house (we had a whole house with a yard! but we never cut the grass in back so it grew to be about 8 feet high), we tried to visit a few people that my normal companion and I had talked to previously, but no one was home. As we were walking down the street we passed the house of a lady who had talked to the missionaries previously but most of that contact happened before I came to the area and I had only visited with her once, though I had talked to her a few times but only briefly. I knew that she might be home and I thought that perhaps she would have time to talk to us.
I explained this to the missionary I was with, who had been in the mission for about a year longer than I had, and thus had more experience with teaching and also with speaking Spanish. He agreed that we could try and talk to her so we stopped and clapped at her house. She was home and she was willing to let us in to talk to her for a little while. After sitting down, exchanging some pleasantries, and the other Elder introduced himself and we then moved into what should have been the more religious portion of our visit. The other Elder asked her a few questions about her previous interaction with the missionaries and how much she had read of the Book of Mormon.
After a few questions the other Elder asked her why she had not progressed more and read more of the Book of Mormon. She answered with a simple response that indicated that she had her doubts about the veracity of what we were teaching. Her response was something along the lines of "Well the Bible says such and such, so I don't see how what you are teaching can be true." It was a response that now with many more years of experience I would know how to respond, but at the time I was a little unsure of how to respond and since the other Elder was leading the conversation I just left it up to him to address her doubts. That was a very bad thing to do. Looking back I now know better how to respond to doubts like that, and I would learn through the course of my mission what is needed to overcome doubts like that. A moment like that is a perfect time for tenderness and understanding with a good dose of knowledge and humility. What she got was just the opposite.
When she expressed her doubt to us the other Elder looked at me with a slight smile and a look that said, "I can't believe she just used such a stupid argument on us!" He then flipped open his Bible to a relevant verse and read it to her and explained in a somewhat condescending way why she was wrong. She countered with another argument from the Bible to which the other Elder again whipped out another verse to "thump" her with. At this point he was no longer interested in conversing with her, he merely wanted to Bible-bash with her. This continued for a while until she started getting nervous and stopped arguing back at the other Elder.
During the exchange I just sat there unsure of what to do. When it was over and the other Elder had "won" we gave a half hearted goodbye and left. After we left her house the other Elder looked at me and confidently proclaimed that he loved it when he got the opportunity to Bible-bash since the other people never know what they are talking about, and he can just "thump 'em" with a whole list of memorized verses from the Bible. He showed me his list of verses that can be used in case of just such an argument. He also recanted to me a series of his best "Bible-bashing" sessions that he had had. I was rather embarrassed by what had happened and unsure of what to do. For the rest of the time I was with that Elder I tried to steer clear of talking to anyone who might put up a fight.
A few days later I was walking down that same street with a member of the branch (so I was not with my normal companion again) when I heard her call out, "Hey Elder!" I went over to the fence in front of her house and she spoke to me and said, "I still don't know if you are from God or not, nor do I know if that Elder Whats-his-name [referring to my normal companion] is from God either, but I know that that one Elder you came by here with a few days ago is not from God. I don't know if the pastor of the church I go to is from God or if you are, but I can tell that that other Elder definitely is not from God."
In what was a moment of maturity beyond my years at the time I very graciously admitted that she was right, and with full sincerity I offered my apologies for what happened. I never spoke to her again.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Sunday, March 17, 2013
"They came confessing their sins": What was the disputation about baptism mentioned in 3 Nephi 11?
As recorded in 3 Nephi 11, when the Savior came to visit the Nephites, He was very clear in his explanation as to the manner of baptism. What is notable about His explanation is the reason why He had to give the explanation. In verse 22 we read, "And [Jesus] said unto them: On this wise shall ye baptize; and there shall be no disputations among you." Thus Jesus was giving this explanation because there was a disagreement among the members of the church as to the manner, or maybe even the necessity, of baptism. Apparently there was some question as to how people were to be baptized as members of the church, and whether or not there was anything else that needed to be done.
After explaining how the Nephites should baptize Jesus continues his explanation by saying,
There may have been some question in some Nephites' minds whether or not baptism was even necessary. Approximately 34 years previous to this event when the sign of Christ's birth was given there were some who had insisted that the Law of Moses was fulfilled and that the Nephites no longer needed to keep it (see 3 Nephi 1:24-25). It is possible that there may have been a similar dispute at that time. The assumption that baptism was no longer required may have seemed obvious to many Nephites since they were all aware of the fact that the Law of Moses had been declared fulfilled (see 3 Nephi 9:16-20). The issue in their minds may have been that baptism, according to their understanding, was part of the Law of Moses, and thus they no longer needed to practice baptisms.
There also may have been some discussion about the actual mechanics of baptism, such as what needed to be said and other things. All these questions were answered by Jesus in his explanation of his doctrine. All of these possibilities that I have mentioned so far involve things that would have taken away from the ordinance of baptism but in verse 40 Jesus mentioned that "whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil" (emphasis added). In other words, the possibilities that I have presented of what was causing contention all fall under the "less" category, so now the question is, what were some Nephites proposing that fell under the "more" category?
For one such possibility let us look into references to "altars" in the Book of Mormon. (What to altars have to do with baptism you ask? Just wait and see.)
In the Book of Mormon there are several references to sacrifices. Lehi and Nephi offered sacrifice. King Benjamin offered sacrifice. Sacrifice plays an important part in some doctrinal sermons. The Nephites were commanded by Jesus to stop sacrifices by the shedding of blood. But despite all these references to sacrifices, which presumably happened on an altar, there are only four references to altars in the Book of Mormon. The first refers to an altar built by Lehi after leaving Jerusalem. The second reference comes from a quote of a vision by Isaiah. The last two references come from parts of the text in Alma where Mormon is explaining or commenting on the results of the missionary endeavors of Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah. It seems that Mormon is simply mentioning the altars almost in passing, like we would mention a pulpit or the pews in a chapel.
The first reference in Alma comes in chapter 15, which reads:
From this passage we can learn a little about the layout of the Nephite's (and later the converted Lamanite) sanctuaries. In their sanctuary where they met to worship there was, apparently, an altar much in the same way our church buildings have pulpits (this concept of an altar at the front of a church is not so confusing for Catholics, Orthodox and other similar creedal Christians, it's just unfamiliar to those of us who grew up in a Protestant influenced church culture). The exact size and configuration of the altar is not clear, but it may have been big enough for a single person to go stand on top of it (hmmm...suddenly the Rameumptom doesn't seem to come entirely out of left field, still imagine how surprised you might be if you walked into a church building and you find that the members of the congregation took turns standing on top of the pulpit, or sacrament table, and shouting out a memorized prayer at the top of their lungs).
The verse in chapter 15 simply calls it "the altar", but in chapter 17 it is referred to as "the altar of God". In Nephite phraseology saying that someone was brought "before the altar" may have been the equivalent of us saying we "filled the pews". The verse in chapter 15 merely states that the people "began to assemble themselves...before the altar" where they prayed, taught and exhorted each other, and made sure that they were all kept in the way.
But in chapter 17 the recently converted Lamanites were brought, "by the power of [the sons of Mosiah's] words" before the "altar of God" where they "[called] on his name and [confessed] their sins before him." This sounds like something a little more formal, organized and dramatic than a simple church meeting. We read elsewhere that the converted Lamanites had made a covenant, a very public covenant that the Nephites knew about, and apparently this covenant was made before the "altar of God", so it was a very serious thing.
When the converted Lamanites came to the land of Zarahemla being lead by the sons of Mosiah, one of the stipulations that the Nephites may have insisted on before accepting them and giving them the land of Jershon may have been that the people of Ammon must appear before "the altar of God" and "call on his name and confess their sins before him" and covenant to never take up arms again. It may have been a condition for their acceptance into the Church of God, that they publicly confess and covenant to never fight again.
What may have unintentionally happened here is that an additional "step" towards salvation was added for those who were not Nephites, or who had previously apostatized from the church. For non-Nephites and perhaps for excessive sinners the church, or at least some of the church leaders, may have been requiring that certain people go through a public confession of their sins and make an additional covenant that was not required of Nephites. It may not have been a problem when the people of Ammon did it for the first time, but the practice may have continued and approximately 100 years later the practice had become established among some branches of the church.
Thus when the church met for their general conference at the temple in the land Bountiful, they were discussing what was required of new members to join the Church of God. Some Nephites may have insisted that baptism was not necessary since the Law of Moses was fulfilled. Others may have disputed the manner of baptism, and there may have been still others who insisted that all new members, or at least former Lamanites/Gadianton Robbers needed to perform the public confession and covenant making before the altar of God. This debate was causing significant contention in the church and it was apparently the primary reason why Christ came to visit them.
After settling the immediate dispute regarding baptism, and any other additional requirements, Jesus then proceeded to give them the new law and new covenant, just as he had done in Israel, the law that would replace the Law of Moses. While much of what I have presented is speculation, we can get a sense that the history, culture and societal issues confronted by the Nephites were a bit more complex than Mormon could have expressed given his size constraints. But we can get hints of the more complex issues dealt with by the Nephites if we are willing to read the Book of Mormon more closely and to consider arguments that we have never considered before.
After explaining how the Nephites should baptize Jesus continues his explanation by saying,
28 And according as I have commanded you thus shall ye baptize. And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been....
40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; (3 Nephi 11:28,40)Again there is the admonition that there should be no disputations and also a warning that if anyone adds to the doctrine, or takes away from it certain critical points, then those people are not building upon the rock of Christ, but on a sandy foundation that cannot weather the storms of life and temptation.
There may have been some question in some Nephites' minds whether or not baptism was even necessary. Approximately 34 years previous to this event when the sign of Christ's birth was given there were some who had insisted that the Law of Moses was fulfilled and that the Nephites no longer needed to keep it (see 3 Nephi 1:24-25). It is possible that there may have been a similar dispute at that time. The assumption that baptism was no longer required may have seemed obvious to many Nephites since they were all aware of the fact that the Law of Moses had been declared fulfilled (see 3 Nephi 9:16-20). The issue in their minds may have been that baptism, according to their understanding, was part of the Law of Moses, and thus they no longer needed to practice baptisms.
There also may have been some discussion about the actual mechanics of baptism, such as what needed to be said and other things. All these questions were answered by Jesus in his explanation of his doctrine. All of these possibilities that I have mentioned so far involve things that would have taken away from the ordinance of baptism but in verse 40 Jesus mentioned that "whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil" (emphasis added). In other words, the possibilities that I have presented of what was causing contention all fall under the "less" category, so now the question is, what were some Nephites proposing that fell under the "more" category?
For one such possibility let us look into references to "altars" in the Book of Mormon. (What to altars have to do with baptism you ask? Just wait and see.)
In the Book of Mormon there are several references to sacrifices. Lehi and Nephi offered sacrifice. King Benjamin offered sacrifice. Sacrifice plays an important part in some doctrinal sermons. The Nephites were commanded by Jesus to stop sacrifices by the shedding of blood. But despite all these references to sacrifices, which presumably happened on an altar, there are only four references to altars in the Book of Mormon. The first refers to an altar built by Lehi after leaving Jerusalem. The second reference comes from a quote of a vision by Isaiah. The last two references come from parts of the text in Alma where Mormon is explaining or commenting on the results of the missionary endeavors of Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah. It seems that Mormon is simply mentioning the altars almost in passing, like we would mention a pulpit or the pews in a chapel.
The first reference in Alma comes in chapter 15, which reads:
17 Therefore, after Alma having established the church at Sidom, seeing a great check, yea, seeing that the people were checked as to the pride of their hearts, and began to humble themselves before God, and began to assemble themselves together at their sanctuaries to worship God before the altar, watching and praying continually, that they might be delivered from Satan, and from death, and from destruction— (Alma 15:17)The second reference is in chapter 17:
4 And [the sons of Mosiah] had been teaching the word of God for the space of fourteen years among the Lamanites, having had much success in bringing many to the knowledge of the truth; yea, by the power of their words many were brought before the altar of God, to call on his name and confess their sins before him. (Alma 17:4)The references in Alma to altars are so unremarkable that most people pass over them without thought. In the second reference, many people would read it and think that Mormon was waxing poetic when he said that the Lamanites "were brought before the altar of God". But if we return to the previous reference we read that the people began to assemble in their sanctuaries, where their sacrifices were presumably performed, "to worship God before the altar".
From this passage we can learn a little about the layout of the Nephite's (and later the converted Lamanite) sanctuaries. In their sanctuary where they met to worship there was, apparently, an altar much in the same way our church buildings have pulpits (this concept of an altar at the front of a church is not so confusing for Catholics, Orthodox and other similar creedal Christians, it's just unfamiliar to those of us who grew up in a Protestant influenced church culture). The exact size and configuration of the altar is not clear, but it may have been big enough for a single person to go stand on top of it (hmmm...suddenly the Rameumptom doesn't seem to come entirely out of left field, still imagine how surprised you might be if you walked into a church building and you find that the members of the congregation took turns standing on top of the pulpit, or sacrament table, and shouting out a memorized prayer at the top of their lungs).
The verse in chapter 15 simply calls it "the altar", but in chapter 17 it is referred to as "the altar of God". In Nephite phraseology saying that someone was brought "before the altar" may have been the equivalent of us saying we "filled the pews". The verse in chapter 15 merely states that the people "began to assemble themselves...before the altar" where they prayed, taught and exhorted each other, and made sure that they were all kept in the way.
But in chapter 17 the recently converted Lamanites were brought, "by the power of [the sons of Mosiah's] words" before the "altar of God" where they "[called] on his name and [confessed] their sins before him." This sounds like something a little more formal, organized and dramatic than a simple church meeting. We read elsewhere that the converted Lamanites had made a covenant, a very public covenant that the Nephites knew about, and apparently this covenant was made before the "altar of God", so it was a very serious thing.
When the converted Lamanites came to the land of Zarahemla being lead by the sons of Mosiah, one of the stipulations that the Nephites may have insisted on before accepting them and giving them the land of Jershon may have been that the people of Ammon must appear before "the altar of God" and "call on his name and confess their sins before him" and covenant to never take up arms again. It may have been a condition for their acceptance into the Church of God, that they publicly confess and covenant to never fight again.
What may have unintentionally happened here is that an additional "step" towards salvation was added for those who were not Nephites, or who had previously apostatized from the church. For non-Nephites and perhaps for excessive sinners the church, or at least some of the church leaders, may have been requiring that certain people go through a public confession of their sins and make an additional covenant that was not required of Nephites. It may not have been a problem when the people of Ammon did it for the first time, but the practice may have continued and approximately 100 years later the practice had become established among some branches of the church.
Thus when the church met for their general conference at the temple in the land Bountiful, they were discussing what was required of new members to join the Church of God. Some Nephites may have insisted that baptism was not necessary since the Law of Moses was fulfilled. Others may have disputed the manner of baptism, and there may have been still others who insisted that all new members, or at least former Lamanites/Gadianton Robbers needed to perform the public confession and covenant making before the altar of God. This debate was causing significant contention in the church and it was apparently the primary reason why Christ came to visit them.
After settling the immediate dispute regarding baptism, and any other additional requirements, Jesus then proceeded to give them the new law and new covenant, just as he had done in Israel, the law that would replace the Law of Moses. While much of what I have presented is speculation, we can get a sense that the history, culture and societal issues confronted by the Nephites were a bit more complex than Mormon could have expressed given his size constraints. But we can get hints of the more complex issues dealt with by the Nephites if we are willing to read the Book of Mormon more closely and to consider arguments that we have never considered before.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Yes I have been neglecting my blog
It is true, I have been neglecting my blog. I have plans for brief reviews of ancient astronomy in the Book of Abraham, more posts about names in the Book of Mormon, and ancient rituals of conversion detailed in the Book of Mormon. But right now my time has been consumed with getting my code to work for my research. The other day I cleaned up two files that I had been working on for some time and I removed all the lines of code that I didn't need. All together I think I removed over 4,000 lines of code. It took me a few days to work through it and determine what I need and what I don't need.
In the meantime I uploaded a video of one of my simulations that I did as a proof of concept. I did this simulation to show my advisor that my fixes to the code are working and that more time should be devoted to the approach that I have been taking. He was impressed.
In the meantime I uploaded a video of one of my simulations that I did as a proof of concept. I did this simulation to show my advisor that my fixes to the code are working and that more time should be devoted to the approach that I have been taking. He was impressed.
Here is the description that goes along with the video:
This is a short video that I made of a simulation that was done as a proof of concept. It shows a fractal distribution of density in the center of a star forming galaxy. This simulation is done using the MHD code Athena. The box size covers 1 kpc in each dimension and has a grid size of 128 in each dimension. The star forming region injects mass and energy into the center region of the simulation.
The proof of concept is for a flux fixer that allows the code to handle high kinetic energy situations where the total kinetic energy is a significant fraction of the total energy.
The visualization was done using Paraview.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Catfish Lake in Croatan National Forest
I took this panorama at Catfish Lake in the Croatan National Forest. There are signs on the highway indicating that it is there, but unless you know the roads in (or have satellite images) you will never find your way to the lake. There is a rather large gravel/sand road into the national forest (Catfish Lake Road) but it doesn't actually pass by the lake. It actually passes by about 500 meters from the lake and you can't see it from the road. You have to take an unmarked single vehicle dirt track to the lake. Unless you know it is there, you would miss it or think it unimportant. After driving for hours we got there right at sun set. What you don't see in this picture are all the mosquitoes, the smoldering campfire behind me and the two slightly inebriated hunters with their packs of beer and hunting rifles. Despite all that the view was incredible.
 |
| Click to see original size. |
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Stories from My Mission: The Preacher from The Assembly of God
This story comes from my second area of my mission in the city of Sáenz Peña. I had not been in the area for long and was still with my first companion in the area, Elder Keyes. There was one family that we went to go teach where two of the children wanted to get baptized and we were hoping that their mother and older sister would also get baptized. There were also other relatives that lived in the house and we eventually hoped to teach them as well but they only occasionally talked to us.
One day we arrived at their house and there was a man there. We introduced ourselves to him and he introduced himself and said that he was the employer of the teenage boy that we had been teaching. We asked him if he was interested in listening to our message. His response was cordial but it was clear that he was uninterested. We sat with the family under their mulberry tree and shared a short message and then we were on our way.
We didn't think much about that brief encounter but as it turned out the stage was set for a religious confrontation. What we didn't know was that man was an active member of a local Assembly of God church. After he saw that we were visiting the family he went and told his pastor about our visit and warned him that "the Mormons" were visiting the family (it turns out that some other members of the family had previously attended the same church).
A few days later we were back visiting the family, this time for a longer visit. We were just discussing the general health of everyone in the household and finding out about the general goings on (i.e. we were being sociable and chatting among friends). We were about to begin our spiritual message for the family when we noticed a man approaching the house. He was a large man (about 6'2'' and well over 200 lbs.) with a beard. He approached and we said good day to him and he returned the greeting. My companion introduced himself as a missionary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and asked if he had ever heard of it. He said he had. We asked him about who he was and he introduced himself as the pastor for a local Assembly of God church.
Elder Keyes then showed him a Book of Mormon and asked him if he had ever heard about it. He said he had, so Elder Keyes asked him if he had ever read it. Again he said he had (we were a little surprised since we had never met anyone except members of the church who had read the Book of Mormon, also it wasn't common the meet people who had read much of anything since in some areas the illiteracy rate could run as high as 50%). After we got over our initial shock, Elder Keyes asked him what he thought about it.
The minister replied that he thought that it was very poorly written and full of evil and false teachings. My companion, slightly taken back, asked him why he thought this about the Book of Mormon. His reply was, "Because it teaches that we shouldn't have the Bible. It says "A Bible! A Bible! What need have we for a Bible?"" We were impressed that he could actually quote something from the Book of Mormon, but disconcerted that he quoted it wrong and twisted it to mean the exact opposite from what it actually says. It was perhaps ironic that he was using a passage that applied very directly to him and twisting it around to seem like we were the ones rejecting the Bible.
My companion said that we have the Bible and that we do not reject it like he said. Elder Keyes even showed him his Bible and I had mine that I could display. The preacher continued with his accusations that the Book of Mormon rejects the Bible and the word of God. At this point I opened my Book of Mormon to 2 Nephi chapter 29, which was the very one that the preacher had just quoted. I said, "What you said is very interesting, let us see what the Book of Mormon actually says."
I proceeded to read from chapter 29 of 2 Nephi. I think I started in verse 6 where it reads:
By this point I was feeling a little mischievous since it was obvious that he was well aware of the fact that he was lying and grossly misrepresenting what the Book of Mormon actually said. So I posed to him what I knew would be an impossible question for him to answer. I asked, "If you could have more of the words of Christ, would you want them?"
At this point he became very agitated and began to denounce the Book of Mormon and say that it did not contain the words of Christ. I responded by saying, "That is not what I asked. I asked, if you could have more of the words of Christ would you want them?" He again became very agitated and made negative statements about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. I, still feeling somewhat mischievous, asked him, "Why would you not what more of the words of Christ?"
Still unable to answer my question he stood up and began to denounce the Book of Mormon very loudly. I simply looked up at him and said very calmly, "What is wrong with having more of the words of Christ?" At this point he lost his temper and instead of answering me he began to "pray" at the top of his lungs asking what ever god could hear to show "these poor misguided chicos" the right way and to show them the truth. He then proceeded to pray for everyone and anyone present and still at the top of his lungs laid a hand on the head of each person present (except us, his hand just hovered about a foot off our shoulder when it came to our turn in the "prayer").
When he was done shouting he proceeded to pull a wad of cash out of his pocket and made a show of thumbing through it in a very exaggerated manner and then took the entire wad and thrust it into the hands of one of the people present (an older sister of the two teenagers we originally were teaching) and told her to use it to buy some food for her little baby that she was holding at the time. He then walked off in a huff.
At the time I thought about quoting to him the part of the Sermon on the Mount that says, "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them" and "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men." But while I could remember the substance of those passages I couldn't remember how it is phrased in Spanish, and at the time I couldn't recall exactly where it was in the scriptures (it is in Matthew 6, and in 3 Nephi 13) and I didn't have time to look it up before he stomped off down the path. That is my one regret that I didn't get that parting shot in.
Afterwards Elder Keyes remarked to me that he was glad that I had jumped in since he was getting too frustrated with the guy. He also said that it was a good thing that the preacher didn't put his hand on him since there may have been some "laying on of hands" on the part of Elder Keyes (note: Elder Keyes is one of the nicest people I have ever met, but at the time he was quite upset with the lies and distortions that the preacher was saying). As far as we knew the preacher never returned to that house.
One day we arrived at their house and there was a man there. We introduced ourselves to him and he introduced himself and said that he was the employer of the teenage boy that we had been teaching. We asked him if he was interested in listening to our message. His response was cordial but it was clear that he was uninterested. We sat with the family under their mulberry tree and shared a short message and then we were on our way.
We didn't think much about that brief encounter but as it turned out the stage was set for a religious confrontation. What we didn't know was that man was an active member of a local Assembly of God church. After he saw that we were visiting the family he went and told his pastor about our visit and warned him that "the Mormons" were visiting the family (it turns out that some other members of the family had previously attended the same church).
A few days later we were back visiting the family, this time for a longer visit. We were just discussing the general health of everyone in the household and finding out about the general goings on (i.e. we were being sociable and chatting among friends). We were about to begin our spiritual message for the family when we noticed a man approaching the house. He was a large man (about 6'2'' and well over 200 lbs.) with a beard. He approached and we said good day to him and he returned the greeting. My companion introduced himself as a missionary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and asked if he had ever heard of it. He said he had. We asked him about who he was and he introduced himself as the pastor for a local Assembly of God church.
Elder Keyes then showed him a Book of Mormon and asked him if he had ever heard about it. He said he had, so Elder Keyes asked him if he had ever read it. Again he said he had (we were a little surprised since we had never met anyone except members of the church who had read the Book of Mormon, also it wasn't common the meet people who had read much of anything since in some areas the illiteracy rate could run as high as 50%). After we got over our initial shock, Elder Keyes asked him what he thought about it.
The minister replied that he thought that it was very poorly written and full of evil and false teachings. My companion, slightly taken back, asked him why he thought this about the Book of Mormon. His reply was, "Because it teaches that we shouldn't have the Bible. It says "A Bible! A Bible! What need have we for a Bible?"" We were impressed that he could actually quote something from the Book of Mormon, but disconcerted that he quoted it wrong and twisted it to mean the exact opposite from what it actually says. It was perhaps ironic that he was using a passage that applied very directly to him and twisting it around to seem like we were the ones rejecting the Bible.
My companion said that we have the Bible and that we do not reject it like he said. Elder Keyes even showed him his Bible and I had mine that I could display. The preacher continued with his accusations that the Book of Mormon rejects the Bible and the word of God. At this point I opened my Book of Mormon to 2 Nephi chapter 29, which was the very one that the preacher had just quoted. I said, "What you said is very interesting, let us see what the Book of Mormon actually says."
I proceeded to read from chapter 29 of 2 Nephi. I think I started in verse 6 where it reads:
6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?To make my point, and because the rest of it was pertinent to what we being said, I continued to read the rest of the chapter (it is only 14 verses long). When I was done I asked him what he thought about what I had just read. He said, "It is an interesting mixture of Biblical language and other stuff." and then proceeded to make statements about how it contradicts Biblical teaching and he didn't believe a word of it.
By this point I was feeling a little mischievous since it was obvious that he was well aware of the fact that he was lying and grossly misrepresenting what the Book of Mormon actually said. So I posed to him what I knew would be an impossible question for him to answer. I asked, "If you could have more of the words of Christ, would you want them?"
At this point he became very agitated and began to denounce the Book of Mormon and say that it did not contain the words of Christ. I responded by saying, "That is not what I asked. I asked, if you could have more of the words of Christ would you want them?" He again became very agitated and made negative statements about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. I, still feeling somewhat mischievous, asked him, "Why would you not what more of the words of Christ?"
Still unable to answer my question he stood up and began to denounce the Book of Mormon very loudly. I simply looked up at him and said very calmly, "What is wrong with having more of the words of Christ?" At this point he lost his temper and instead of answering me he began to "pray" at the top of his lungs asking what ever god could hear to show "these poor misguided chicos" the right way and to show them the truth. He then proceeded to pray for everyone and anyone present and still at the top of his lungs laid a hand on the head of each person present (except us, his hand just hovered about a foot off our shoulder when it came to our turn in the "prayer").
When he was done shouting he proceeded to pull a wad of cash out of his pocket and made a show of thumbing through it in a very exaggerated manner and then took the entire wad and thrust it into the hands of one of the people present (an older sister of the two teenagers we originally were teaching) and told her to use it to buy some food for her little baby that she was holding at the time. He then walked off in a huff.
At the time I thought about quoting to him the part of the Sermon on the Mount that says, "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them" and "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men." But while I could remember the substance of those passages I couldn't remember how it is phrased in Spanish, and at the time I couldn't recall exactly where it was in the scriptures (it is in Matthew 6, and in 3 Nephi 13) and I didn't have time to look it up before he stomped off down the path. That is my one regret that I didn't get that parting shot in.
Afterwards Elder Keyes remarked to me that he was glad that I had jumped in since he was getting too frustrated with the guy. He also said that it was a good thing that the preacher didn't put his hand on him since there may have been some "laying on of hands" on the part of Elder Keyes (note: Elder Keyes is one of the nicest people I have ever met, but at the time he was quite upset with the lies and distortions that the preacher was saying). As far as we knew the preacher never returned to that house.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Is "The Son of Man" Lord of the Sabbath or is Man? An interesting look at Mark 2:27-28.
A while ago I was reading the book Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth by Bart D. Ehrman and I came across an interesting part. Dr. Ehramn was discussing whether or not the oral histories that would eventually become the four canonical gospels could have originated in Judea in the first century, and he gave as evidence the passage found in Mark 2:27-28, which reads:
To finish up his argument Jesus tells them "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath". Up until now his argument makes sense but then he adds, "Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." In the book of Mark the phrase "Son of man" clearly refers to Jesus, who is understood to be the Messiah. But this phrase does not follow from his previous argument. It seems to be a non sequitur, because why would the fact that the Sabbath was made for man make Jesus (the Messiah) Lord of the Sabbath? But this is precisely what the word therefore implies, that because of the previous argument Jesus concluded that He is Lord of the Sabbath.
I remember years ago in Sunday School classes this scripture was talked about and debated because no one could really make sense of it. I heard a number of different explanations regarding verse 28, but none of them seemed satisfactory and felt like the explanation was stretched just a little too far.
If you go and look at the text in Greek the text is clear, the υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (son of man) is the Lord of the Sabbath. So looking at the original Greek does not help since the confusion is still there. But interestingly enough if you take the text and translate it into Aramaic then the sense of verse 28 changes. As explained by Dr. Ehrman in his book Did Jesus Exist? we discover,
27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.This particular passage deals with an event where the pharisees confronted Jesus and complained that his disciples were walking through fields of grain on the Sabbath and plucking and eating the grain from the field. This they said, was a violation of the commandment to "keep the Sabbath day holy". To this Jesus responds by mentioning the story of king David and how he ate the shewbread from the tabernacle, which he was not supposed to do according to Jewish law. Jesus is essentially saying, "If David, who you revere can do that and you do not condemn him, why do you condemn my disciples for eating food that does not come from the sanctuary, and is not holy?"
To finish up his argument Jesus tells them "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath". Up until now his argument makes sense but then he adds, "Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." In the book of Mark the phrase "Son of man" clearly refers to Jesus, who is understood to be the Messiah. But this phrase does not follow from his previous argument. It seems to be a non sequitur, because why would the fact that the Sabbath was made for man make Jesus (the Messiah) Lord of the Sabbath? But this is precisely what the word therefore implies, that because of the previous argument Jesus concluded that He is Lord of the Sabbath.
I remember years ago in Sunday School classes this scripture was talked about and debated because no one could really make sense of it. I heard a number of different explanations regarding verse 28, but none of them seemed satisfactory and felt like the explanation was stretched just a little too far.
If you go and look at the text in Greek the text is clear, the υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (son of man) is the Lord of the Sabbath. So looking at the original Greek does not help since the confusion is still there. But interestingly enough if you take the text and translate it into Aramaic then the sense of verse 28 changes. As explained by Dr. Ehrman in his book Did Jesus Exist? we discover,
"Aramaic uses the same word for man and for son of man. It is the word barnash. And so the two-liner originally said, "Sabbath was made for barnash, not barnash for the Sabbath. Therefore barnash is lord of the Sabbath." Now the therefore makes sense. The reason that humans (barnash) are the lords of the Sabbath is because of what he just said: Sabbath was made for humans, not the other way around. Moreover, now the last line makes sense in the context of the story. The disciples (the barnash) are masters of the Sabbath, which was created for their sake." (p. 89)So even though the earliest texts of the book of Mark are written in Greek, Dr. Ehrman uses this passage to point out that the original stories told by the disciples of Jesus were told in Aramaic, because occasionally they make more sense when translated into Aramaic. I think this version (from the Aramaic) is very interesting and really clarifies this passage. The theological implications of this change are interesting.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Who was Ezias mentioned in Helaman 8:20?
In the book of Helaman in the Book of Mormon there is a dramatic story where Nephi, the prophet, has to defend himself against a group of hostile and corrupt judges. Because Nephi was speaking out boldly against the corruption and wickedness of people, a few judges, the people who had the most to lose from his preaching, sought to incite a mob against him. But Nephi responded by forcefully testifying of their crimes and wickedness and then declaring that they must believe in the coming of the Son of God. When the corrupt judges objected to this, saying that it was impossible for Nephi to know about something like that before it actually happened, Nephi responded by saying that he was not alone in testifying about the coming of the Son of God.
First Nephi appealed to Moses who testified of the coming of the Son of God and then said,
If we do a search of the Bible for Ezias we come up with nothing. But if we extend our search a little we find this [biblestudytools.com]:
So now we have a reference point and names and people to investigate as possibilities. Before we started this investigation we knew nothing about Ezias other than we was supposedly a Biblical prophet, who is not found in the Bible. But now we have some indication that the name Ezias is a Hebrew name, and that there are a few candidates for who he might be in the Bible. Let us consider the four candidates mention by the "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia", as given above (Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. "Entry for 'OZIAS'". "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia". 1915.).
The first, Ozias, a ruler of the city Bethulia in the days of Judith. Not much known about him, maybe not a good candidate. The second is a ancestor of Ezra, and a direct descendant of Aaron, and therefore a High Priest. Perhaps a good candidate. The third is someone who lived after the Jews came back after the Babylonian captivity, so that rules him out. The forth was a king of Judah who died from leprosy. Not perhaps the best candidate. [Author note after some more exploring: "Uzzi" is listed (#6) as one of the recognized high priests over the tabernacle. There are more people of the same name in the Bible but they all appear to be living after the captivity or we know even less about them other than their name, so we can ignore them.]
So here we have it. Ezias is referred to in the Book of Mormon as a prophet who testified of the coming of the Son of God. The only thing we can say for sure is that Ezias is a Hebrew name and is shared with several people who are mentioned in the Bible. Of those mentioned most can be eliminated since they lived after the Babylonian captivity, and hence the Nephites would not have known about them. There are a few that cannot be considered to be prophets by any stretch of the imagination. A few more that we know nothing about. And finally there is "Uzzi" who is one of descendants of Aaron and may (or may not, depending on who you believe) have been the high priest of the tabernacle.
We definitely do not know enough to positively identify Ezias with anyone mentioned in the Bible, but by looking at the name and realizing that the same Hebrew name is spelled many different ways in English we have at least one person who might be considered to be a candidate for the Ezias mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Uzzi, who may have been a high priest, does seem to have the credentials to be a prophet who testified of the coming of the Son of God. Still, we will never really figure it out until we get some more records that contain more information than we now have. The brass plates would be nice, so maybe someday. In the end perhaps Ezias, who is only mentioned once in the Book of Mormon, is a little less anonymous than we think he is.
First Nephi appealed to Moses who testified of the coming of the Son of God and then said,
16 And now behold, Moses did not only testify of these things, but also all the holy prophets, from his days even to the days of Abraham.
17 Yea, and behold, Abraham saw of his coming, and was filled with gladness and did rejoice.
18 Yea, and behold I say unto you, that Abraham not only knew of these things, but there were many before the days of Abraham who were called by the order of God; yea, even after the order of his Son; and this that it should be shown unto the people, a great many thousand years before his coming, that even redemption should come unto them. (Helaman 8:16-18)Then Nephi lists a number of other prophets who also testified of the coming of the Son of God including, Zenos, Zenock, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezias. Of this list Isaiah and Jeremiah are well known biblical prophets but the other three are apparently unknown prophets from biblical times. Both Zenos and Zenock are mentioned in other parts of the Book of Mormon and in a few cases are even quoted at length. But for Ezias this is his only mention. So other than having his name included in a list of prophets who testified of the Son of God, nothing else known about him, other than the oh so helpful footnote of "TG Scriptures, Lost".
If we do a search of the Bible for Ezias we come up with nothing. But if we extend our search a little we find this [biblestudytools.com]:
EZIAS
e-zi'-as:
the Revised Version (British and American)
OZIAS (which see).If we look up the entry for Ozias we find:
OZIAS
o-zi'-as:
(1) (Ozeias, Ozias, Codex Vaticanus a b): The son of Micah, a Simeonite, one of the 3 rulers of Bethulia in the days of Judith (Judith 6:15,16; 7:23; 8:9; 10:6).
(2) (Ozeias, Codex Vaticanus and Swete; the King James Version has Ezias (1 Esdras 8:2), following Codex Alexandrinus Ezias): An ancestor of Ezra (1 Esdras 8:2; 2 Esdras 1:2) equals "Uzzi" of Ezra 7:4; 1 Chronicles 6:51.
(3) Head of a family of temple-servants who returned with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:31) equals "Uzza" of Ezra 2:49; Nehemiah 7:51.
(4) Greek form of UZZIAH (which see) in Matthew 1:8,9 the King James Version. A king of Judah.So it turns out that Ezias is a Hebrew name and is found in the Bible. It's just that there are several different ways of writing the original Hebrew name in English. It is also interesting to note that the version of the name, "Ezias", that we are concerned with does appear in the King James Version of the Bible, but only in the Apocrypha (the book of 1 Esdras). But most Protestant (and all LDS) versions of the Bible exclude the Apocrypha, so I did not immediately think including the Apocrypha in my search, but it is good that it came up. There are variations in the way the names are written in English but they all go back to the same Hebrew root name, עֻזִּי (`ZYH), which means "strong".
So now we have a reference point and names and people to investigate as possibilities. Before we started this investigation we knew nothing about Ezias other than we was supposedly a Biblical prophet, who is not found in the Bible. But now we have some indication that the name Ezias is a Hebrew name, and that there are a few candidates for who he might be in the Bible. Let us consider the four candidates mention by the "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia", as given above (Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. "Entry for 'OZIAS'". "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia". 1915.).
The first, Ozias, a ruler of the city Bethulia in the days of Judith. Not much known about him, maybe not a good candidate. The second is a ancestor of Ezra, and a direct descendant of Aaron, and therefore a High Priest. Perhaps a good candidate. The third is someone who lived after the Jews came back after the Babylonian captivity, so that rules him out. The forth was a king of Judah who died from leprosy. Not perhaps the best candidate. [Author note after some more exploring: "Uzzi" is listed (#6) as one of the recognized high priests over the tabernacle. There are more people of the same name in the Bible but they all appear to be living after the captivity or we know even less about them other than their name, so we can ignore them.]
So here we have it. Ezias is referred to in the Book of Mormon as a prophet who testified of the coming of the Son of God. The only thing we can say for sure is that Ezias is a Hebrew name and is shared with several people who are mentioned in the Bible. Of those mentioned most can be eliminated since they lived after the Babylonian captivity, and hence the Nephites would not have known about them. There are a few that cannot be considered to be prophets by any stretch of the imagination. A few more that we know nothing about. And finally there is "Uzzi" who is one of descendants of Aaron and may (or may not, depending on who you believe) have been the high priest of the tabernacle.
We definitely do not know enough to positively identify Ezias with anyone mentioned in the Bible, but by looking at the name and realizing that the same Hebrew name is spelled many different ways in English we have at least one person who might be considered to be a candidate for the Ezias mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Uzzi, who may have been a high priest, does seem to have the credentials to be a prophet who testified of the coming of the Son of God. Still, we will never really figure it out until we get some more records that contain more information than we now have. The brass plates would be nice, so maybe someday. In the end perhaps Ezias, who is only mentioned once in the Book of Mormon, is a little less anonymous than we think he is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)