To combat the notion that the Book of Mormon does not contain many LDS-specific theology, Dr Val Larsen gives several more examples of the LDS-specific doctrine of exaltation in the Book of Mormon, specifically the idea that man can become like God. Dr Larsen says Ammon’s story is an example of exaltation or theosis. We’ll examine the stories of Ammon, Aaron, & Lamoni to discuss how theosis is in the Book of Mormon.
Dr Larsen disputes the notion that Nauvoo doctrines are not in the Book of Mormon. He says the Orthodox doctrine of theosis, or what LDS would call Exaltation is in the Book of Mormon. We’ll examine the stories of Ammon, Aaron, & Lamoni to discuss how theosis is in the Book of Mormon. Val also goes on to mention that Lamoni’s vision of God is quite anthropomorphic, akin to modern LDS theology. And the story of Aaron teaching Lamoni’s father, with Aaron being bound before the king gives parallels to Christ being bound before Pilate.
Abish is usually seen as a minor character in the Book of Mormon, but Dr Val Larsen thinks she likely had visions of God and perhaps Heavenly Mother. He will talk more about this amazing Book of Mormon woman, and show that her name has religious significance. Most people mispronounce her name. He says it should be pronounced Ah-bish to align better with the Hebrew language. Her name literally means “my father is a man.” This is significant because he believes her name is a theophoric name that alludes to God the Father, not her earthy father. Once again, this aligns with modern LDS theology.
Dr Val Larsen concludes this conversation with a discussion of theosis in the Book of Mormon. He says Nephi (in 3rd Nephi) is another example of theosis (as will as the original Nephi.) He notes famed non-LDS scholar Dr Margaret Barker has found a lot of temple theology in the Bible that LDS readers would find quite compelling as well.
We’ll also discuss his upcoming projects. He is working on an atonement paper, dealing with LDS ideas of atonement.
Do you find Val’s arguments compelling? Is there more LDS doctrine in the Book of Mormon than meets the eye?
Wheat & Tares 
The Book of Mormon says in no uncertain terms that it is a “lesser portion of the word.” And that more will be revealed if we receive the portion that it offers. Even so, it is evident that it was written and compiled by people who knew the “greater portion of the word.” And so, there is a wisp of the mysteries that permeates the entire text of the BoM–including the doctrine of theosis among many other wonderful gems.
Does Val Larsen consider the striking similarities between Lamoni in Alma 19 and Lazarus in John 11? I think it is quite clear that Joseph Smith plagiarized the KJV to construct the Book of Mormon. King Lamoni does not have a miraculous conversion, his conversion experience is lifted from the Book of John in the Bible.
Alma 19:2 “she sent…come in unto her”
John 11:3 “his sisters sent unto him
Alma 19:5 “he is not dead…he is dead”
Alma 19:7: “he was not dead
Alma 19:8: “He is not dead, but he sleepeth”
John 11:4 “not unto death”
John 11:11 “Lazarus sleepeth”
John 11:14 “Lazarus is dead”
Alma 19:1 “after two days”
Alma 19:5 “for the space of two days”
John 11:6 “He abode two days”
Alma 19:6 “the light which did light up his mind”
John 11:9 “he seeth the light of this world”
John 11:10 “light in him”
Alma 19:8 “he shall rise again”
Alma 19:11 “he should rise”
John 11:23 “Thy brother shall rise again”
Alma 19:6 “the light of everlasting life”
Alma 19:13 “he shall redeem all mankind who believe on his name”
John 11:25 “I am the resurrection and the life”
John 11:26 “And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die”
Alma 19:9 “Believest thou this? And she said unto him:…I believe”
John 11:26 “Believest thou this? She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe”
Alma 19:5 “he stinketh”
John 11:39 “he stinketh”
Alma 19:6 “the dark veil of unbelief was being cast away…the light of the glory of God”
John 11:40 “if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God”
Alma 19:12 “he arose”
John 11;44 “he that was dead came forth
I would like to know what Val Larsen thinks is the Hebrew significance of the name of the Nephite Apostle Timothy?
Regarding the Lamoni/Lazarus comparison, Ben McGuire responded carefully when Grant Palmer offered it.
Grant Palmer, in his book An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) repeated this argument. LDS apologist Benjamin McGuire forever eviscerated this argument:
1) Palmer argues that Joseph Smith was competent enough to produce the Book of Mormon text.
Quote:
One of the most persistent beliefs regarding the Book of Mormons authorship is that Joseph Smith was intellectually incapable of writing it. This invites an exploration of the creative mind and the secular and religious education of the prophet.(p. 40)
2) Joseph Smith relied on other sources to do so (specifically the King James Bible – for chapters 2 and 3).
My response is varied depending on the specific claims of Palmer. In some cases, I feel that his textual dependance is a figment of his imagination – contrived, with no real validity in his argument. In other cases, I find that the argument of textual reliance (which is in a few places explicitly noted within the BoM) is completely accurate – and matches the rhetorical purposes of the text within the BoM. However, I argue that the textual reliance is not specifically on the KJV but on the biblical tradition. In some cases, it seems unlikely or even impossible for Joseph to have been a competent enough reader to establish the points of connection. At the samer time (and before it gets pointed out to me) there are instances where the BoM effectively quotes the KJV – and I will address these too when I get to that point in Palmer’s text. The summary of my response is that some of Palmer’s conclusions are verified in his evidence, and some are not – but the evidence does not support his conclusion that the only way to view the text is as a creation of Joseph Smith.
So, to start, I want to look at his evidentiary claims. His first example of literary reliance is found on page 48 and compares a biblical text to a BoM text.
John 11:
Quote:
sent unto him [Jesus saith,] This sickness is not unto death, [for] Lazarus sleepeth [Then] Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again Jesus said unto her Believest thou this? She saith unto him, Yea Lord: I believe [but] by this time he stinketh [Jesus spoke a]nd he that was dead came forth
Compared to the following text from Alma 19:
Quote:
sent and desired that he [Ammon] should come and some say he stinketh He is not dead, [Ammon said,] but sleepeth [and] he shall rise again Ammon said unto her: Believest thou this? And she said unto him I believe [And] he arose
Pretty straight forward. Palmer claims to have identified the shared phrasing (in italics) and “seven common motifs” between the two narratives. Now, I will refer on occaision to my methodology in dealing with claims of textual reliance and intertextuality (which I e-mailed you a considerable while ago in my Nephi-Goliath paper). So I won’t repeat them here now. Palmer goes on to claim:
Quote:
The phrase he stinketh appears once in the Bible and once in the Book of Mormon. The words he stinketh and sleepeth are found together only in these two chapters. The seven-word phrase believest thou this? She saith unto him appears only in John and Alma.
So, Palmer is claiming a number of things. First, he points to verbal and thematic parallels (the weakest kind of intertext evidence) and then strengthens them with claims of uniqueness and less obvious with a similar narrative structure as evident by the similar ordering of the parallels.
However, there are several problems with his argument – both from the side of the evidence which he presents, and then from the side of methodological exclusion. Le tme start with the evidence.
First, length of parallel is problematic. Single words are generally not enough evidence to go on. (I argue in my paper of course that they can be in certain circumstances – as the term ‘murmur’ in the BoM is certainly drawn from the OT text – but it is used frequently and to the same end in both texts – but that is not the case here). The one lengthier matched phrase is not an exact match (yes this is a nitpicking detail but you will see the significance of it in a minute). The two halves of the longer citation both find parallels in both texts. All of these things are of mild concern. They are not the real issue.
The real issue is over rhetorical value. Palmer introduces the BoM passage with the comment “Lamoni is dying …” It seems important to Palmer to stress this point as it tends to bring the two accounts into some semblance of harmony (as erroneous as Palmer’s comment is). A brief look at the Johannine account is worth review:
Lazarus get sick (v 1)
Jesus is sent for because of the illness (v 3)
Jesus claims that the sickness is not so Lazarus will die, but that God’s gloey might be revealed (v 4)
Jesus waits 2 days (v6)
Then announces his intent to go to Judea (to see Lazarus) (v 7)
His disciples respond that they tried to kill him there last time (v 8 )
Jesus tells them that Lazarus is asleep and needs to be awakened (vs 11)
The apostles, assuming that sleeping means to “be asleep” suggest that if Lazarus is sleeping, then everything is ok (v 12)
Jesus explains that by sleeping he means “dead” (v 14)
Thomas Didymas suggests that if they are going to go, its fitting – since they will join him in death (ostensibly at the hands of the Jews) (v 16 – I love the sarcasm ….)
Jesus arrives, and of course Lazarus has been dead for four days.
Now, let us look at a couple of the key phrases –
sleepeth: only once (and it is not in this passage, but in Mormon 9) in the BoM is sleep used as a euphamism for death. When the Gospel of John uses the term it is a reference to death. So, we have in John this exchange: Our friend Lazarus sleepeth Lazarus is dead. In the Book of Mormon there is no pretense, no figurative language. Ammon states: He is not dead, but he sleepeth in God. The use of this term is significantly different between the two texts. The rhetorical usage of the word in John is foreign to the BoM narrative.
The whole notion of stinking has issues as well. In John, it is used as a way of showing how long Lazarus had been dead. He must stink they say when Jesus asks for the tomb to be opened. In the BoM it is a question – does he or doesn’t he. And while Lazarus stank, Lamoni didn’t. (Some claimed that he did according to the Queen – but these were probably contenders for the throne – the Queen observes that he doesn’t stink). Of course the notion of stinking corpses is not unknown in the BoM. So the question is whether or not the conjunction of these terms is merely coincidence or unique demonstration of dependance. The rhetorical evidence again does not favor the comparison.
On the other hand, as Palmer himself notes, there are a number of conversion accounts similar to the Lamoni account here. The one that occurs earlier within the text is in Mosiah 27, and account of the conversion of Alma. If we examine those two texts, we come up with a series of parallels also:
Quote:
(M) he became dumb, that he could not open his mouth; yea, and he became weak, even that he could not move his hands; therefore he was taken by those that were with him, and carried helpless, even until he was laid before his father.
(A) he fell unto the earth, as if he were dead. And it came to pass that his servants took him and carried him in unto his wife, and laid him upon a bed
(M) And they rehearsed unto his father all that had happened unto them; and his father rejoiced, for he knew that it was the power of God.
(A) And she said unto him: <narrative here describing events again> Now, Ammon knew that king Lamoni was under the power of God
(M) And it came to pass after they had fasted and prayed for the space of two days and two nights, the limbs of Alma received their strength,
(A) and he lay as if he were dead for the space of two days and two nights
AND it came to pass that after two days and two nights
for he has been laid upon his bed for the space of two days and two nights
(M) and he stood up and began to speak unto them, bidding them to be of good comfort:
(A) And it came to pass that he arose, and as he arose, he stretched forth his hand unto the woman, and said
(M) I have been redeemed of the Lord; all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must [be] redeemed of God
(A) behold, I have seen my Redeemer; and he shall redeem all mankind who believe on his name.
(M) I was in the darkest abyss; but now I behold the marvelous light of God
(A) he knew that the dark veil of unbelief was being cast away from his mind, and the light which did light up his mind, which was the light of the glory of God
Now, we have a problem. Here is one text which is ostensibly related to the other. This is a much better match – in terms of parallels. The common phrasing and themes meet the same rhetorical values in both texts. But, the text in Mosiah does not show any resemblance at all to the John 11 text. And even if we only claim a close textual relationship between the two, the striking similarities serve as a substantial argument against any relationship between the BoM narrative(s) and the KJV. So, when Palmer concludes his example with this comment:
Quote:
Within the story of Lazarus we can see potential evidence of a thorough knowledge of the Bible. The identifying and unique phrases of the Lazarus story appear with slight modifications in Alma.
I find that Palmer is either intentionally manipulating the evidence or rather that Palmer himself has only paid attention to superficial similarities and not to content. The text of the BoM at this point can only be seen as reliant on the KJV if we first insist that no careful reading of the Biblical text was made. And more importantly that we create an unusable criteria for “uniqueness” in our method. Does Palmer’s method (and objective) prevent him from understanding some of the more basic points of the literary nature of the BoM?