I’m so thankful to have found and heard this podcast. I too had questions about Deutero Isaiah and the approaches discussed really helped me find comfort and peace to these questions. God is truly a God of Miracles!
This was inspiring, interesting and frustrating...to explain...as a litigator and now in my quasi-judicial capacities I have noted that my reasons...and those of any judicial officer...are only as good as the lawyers that appear before me and their capacity to identify issues and make the important transition from presentation of evidence to establishment of fact. Many of the primary questions associated with the veracity of the Book of Mormon are actually easily established, particularly when the subjective revelatory experience of the reader informs the objective observations of society as to the impact of the book and its doctrine on the reader. The challenge is that there is much surrounding issues like the deutero-isaiah issue that is informed by a context that has not yet been established as fact...and that may in fact be doubtable as being much more than presumption. For example, i see little evidence in the book that nephi's account as found in this abridgement is complete, and even less that significant portions of it, if any, were written contemporaneously with the events. In fact, most of 1 Nephi reads, to a legal historian schooled in ancient Hebraic law and "rules of evidence" at least to some extent like this is a Nephi asserting his authority as a king and not a thief and not a murderer after the fact...and this may be entirely honest of him, but it certainly explains some of why he has included what he included, framed it the way he did, and excludes what he excludes. This is not dishonesty...its basic economy...it would be a waste of his time and ours if he included details on primary issues he is advocating out of concern for the exclusion of facts that could shed light on secondary or tertiary issues. When dealing with a child abuse case, i rarely put in an affidavit what kind of car a parent drives, or what they ate for breakfast on a given morning. These may become important "hinge details" ...little facts upon which large determinations will turn... but the likelihood is low, and so as a matter of economy, i dont bother...and when i am sitting, if i hear a detail like that, i expect the lawyer to highlight it to me and say "members of the panel, i need you to note this seemingly little detail." The likelihood that nephi writes his accounts, or what we have of them, long after his family's contact with the Americas opens the field for another set of secondary questions...namely, how many people and how many complex, and porous societies were already there? The broad nomenclature employed in the book of mormon seems more descriptive than definitive...and along the same lines of a characteristically porous and comples group of peoples into which the book of mormon subset of prophets and believers who are even smaller numerically than those whose social and political values make them "like nephi", or " nephites". And if this is the case, would he, or the individual drafting the "affidavit" whose purpose is actually quite constrained as defined in the book's introduction, bother with noting something as common as contact with others who arrive in the americas, bringing with them some of the post-babylonian portions of isaiah that form the basis of the deutero-isaiah discussion? The challenge is that the book is not an adequate historical record and was not written to be one. It is a piece of a puzzle that holds a place in a much broader society, and the parameters and function of that piece are cautiously employed until the broader historic context into which it fits can be determined. I do not say contact with others that brought parts of deutero-isaiah happened...i do say that on the record there is an evidentiary void there that should cause us to remain open to that possibility. Particularly when we consider names and persons that appear like "sherem" or, in 3 nephi, apostles bearing distinctly greek names like "timothy" .
Super! I recently started looking at complaints about the Book of Mormon in the comments section of some church members youtube videos. There are usually wonderful faithful responses to the complaints, given by one or more persons. I had heard of this complain but my thought has always been the first response, the Book of Mormon is true and I am not going to worry about it. I enjoyed hearing about the other responses spoken about in this video. They are new to me. It is nice to see that the Lord has prepared people in various ways to help encourage us and give us reasonable answers to things we wonder about. Thanks for your videos.
I see Isaiah writing some of the chapters and perhaps having a scribe write down other chapters. Perhaps the scribe used third person perspective as he wrote.
The approaches discussed are limited to the ones that maintain the premise that the BoM is ancient. Another approach is to conclude that it's not ancient. The reason nephi includes those chapters is because Joseph believed all of Isaiah was written by Isaiah and so nephi should have them. That the BoM is a 19th century production. Though not ancient, one could still believe that it's the result of the gift and power of God. That it's not so important that the people existed or events took place. What matters are the plain and precious truths of the gospel contained therein; However, that would create issues with the claims Joseph made about the BoM and the claims the BoM makes about itself, which could be one and the same. I guess this leads to a debate about if there is room for the idea that the BoM is not ancient among believing scholarship.
I’m so thankful to have found and heard this podcast. I too had questions about Deutero Isaiah and the approaches discussed really helped me find comfort and peace to these questions. God is truly a God of Miracles!
Great interview! Thanks
This was inspiring, interesting and frustrating...to explain...as a litigator and now in my quasi-judicial capacities I have noted that my reasons...and those of any judicial officer...are only as good as the lawyers that appear before me and their capacity to identify issues and make the important transition from presentation of evidence to establishment of fact. Many of the primary questions associated with the veracity of the Book of Mormon are actually easily established, particularly when the subjective revelatory experience of the reader informs the objective observations of society as to the impact of the book and its doctrine on the reader.
The challenge is that there is much surrounding issues like the deutero-isaiah issue that is informed by a context that has not yet been established as fact...and that may in fact be doubtable as being much more than presumption. For example, i see little evidence in the book that nephi's account as found in this abridgement is complete, and even less that significant portions of it, if any, were written contemporaneously with the events. In fact, most of 1 Nephi reads, to a legal historian schooled in ancient Hebraic law and "rules of evidence" at least to some extent like this is a Nephi asserting his authority as a king and not a thief and not a murderer after the fact...and this may be entirely honest of him, but it certainly explains some of why he has included what he included, framed it the way he did, and excludes what he excludes. This is not dishonesty...its basic economy...it would be a waste of his time and ours if he included details on primary issues he is advocating out of concern for the exclusion of facts that could shed light on secondary or tertiary issues. When dealing with a child abuse case, i rarely put in an affidavit what kind of car a parent drives, or what they ate for breakfast on a given morning. These may become important "hinge details" ...little facts upon which large determinations will turn... but the likelihood is low, and so as a matter of economy, i dont bother...and when i am sitting, if i hear a detail like that, i expect the lawyer to highlight it to me and say "members of the panel, i need you to note this seemingly little detail."
The likelihood that nephi writes his accounts, or what we have of them, long after his family's contact with the Americas opens the field for another set of secondary questions...namely, how many people and how many complex, and porous societies were already there? The broad nomenclature employed in the book of mormon seems more descriptive than definitive...and along the same lines of a characteristically porous and comples group of peoples into which the book of mormon subset of prophets and believers who are even smaller numerically than those whose social and political values make them "like nephi", or " nephites". And if this is the case, would he, or the individual drafting the "affidavit" whose purpose is actually quite constrained as defined in the book's introduction, bother with noting something as common as contact with others who arrive in the americas, bringing with them some of the post-babylonian portions of isaiah that form the basis of the deutero-isaiah discussion?
The challenge is that the book is not an adequate historical record and was not written to be one. It is a piece of a puzzle that holds a place in a much broader society, and the parameters and function of that piece are cautiously employed until the broader historic context into which it fits can be determined.
I do not say contact with others that brought parts of deutero-isaiah happened...i do say that on the record there is an evidentiary void there that should cause us to remain open to that possibility. Particularly when we consider names and persons that appear like "sherem" or, in 3 nephi, apostles bearing distinctly greek names like "timothy" .
This is fantastic, gives me something to think about, thank you
Super! I recently started looking at complaints about the Book of Mormon in the comments section of some church members youtube videos. There are usually wonderful faithful responses to the complaints, given by one or more persons. I had heard of this complain but my thought has always been the first response, the Book of Mormon is true and I am not going to worry about it. I enjoyed hearing about the other responses spoken about in this video. They are new to me. It is nice to see that the Lord has prepared people in various ways to help encourage us and give us reasonable answers to things we wonder about. Thanks for your videos.
I see Isaiah writing some of the chapters and perhaps having a scribe write down other chapters. Perhaps the scribe used third person perspective as he wrote.
Gee. Thank u
The approaches discussed are limited to the ones that maintain the premise that the BoM is ancient. Another approach is to conclude that it's not ancient. The reason nephi includes those chapters is because Joseph believed all of Isaiah was written by Isaiah and so nephi should have them. That the BoM is a 19th century production.
Though not ancient, one could still believe that it's the result of the gift and power of God. That it's not so important that the people existed or events took place. What matters are the plain and precious truths of the gospel contained therein; However, that would create issues with the claims Joseph made about the BoM and the claims the BoM makes about itself, which could be one and the same.
I guess this leads to a debate about if there is room for the idea that the BoM is not ancient among believing scholarship.