cms@gatech.edu (09/14/90)
This is in response to an earlier posting concerning whether Mary is
the Mother of God or the Mother of the Son of God. Mormons may
correct me, but it's my understanding that Mormons reject the notion
of Mary as Mother of God. I defended this position by stating that
the Book of Mormon refers to Mary as Mother of God in I Nephi 11:18;
this was refuted by statements to the effect that a correction was
made so that the passage reads Mother of the Son of God.
The following is a quotation from the Book of Mormon Critical Text of
the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies Critical Text
Project: BEGIN QUOTE
AND I BEHELD THE CITY OF NATHARETH (sic)
1 11:13 c NEPHI:N1ST AND IN THE CITY OF NATHARETH I BEHELD A VIRGIN
AND SHE WAS EXCEDING (sic) FAIR AND WHITE
1 11:14 a NEPHI:N1ST AND IT CAME TO PASS THAT I SAW THE HEAVENS OPEN
AND AN ANGEL CAME DOWN AND STOOD BEFORE ME
1 11:14 b NEPHI:N1ST AND HE SAITH UNTO ME
1 11:14 c ANGEL:S NEPHI WHAT BEHOLDEST THOU
1 11:15 a NEPHI:N1ST AND I SAITH UNTO HIM
1 11:15 b NEPHI:S A VIRGIN MOST BEAUTIFUL
AND FAIR ABOVE ALL OTHER VIRGINS
1 11:16 a NEPHI:N1ST AND HE SAITH UNTO ME
1 11:16 b ANGEL:S KNOWEST THOU THE CONDESENSION (sic) OF GOD
1 11:17 a NEPHI:N1ST AND I SAID UNTO HIM
1 11:17 b NEPHI:S I KNOW THAT HE LOVETH HIS CHILDREN
NEVERTHELESS I DO NOT KNOW
1 11:17 c NEPHI:S THE MEANING OF ALL THINGS
1 11:18 a NEPHI:N1ST AND HE SAID UNTO ME
1 11:18 b ANGEL:S BEHOLD THE VIRGIN WHICH THOU SEEST
IS THE MOTHER OF GOD
1 11:18 c ANGEL:S AFTER THE MANNER OF THE FLESH
1 11:19 a NEPHI:N1ST AND IT CAME TO PASS THAT I BEHELD
THAT SHE WAS CARRIED AWAY IN THE SPIRIT
1 11:19 b NEPHI:N1ST AND AFTER THAT SHE HAD BEEN CARRIED AWAY
IN THE SPIRIT FOR THE SPACE OF A TIME
1 11:19 c NEPHI:N1ST THE ANGEL SPAKE UNTO ME SAYING
1 11:19 d ANGEL:S LOOK
1 11:20 a NEPHI:N1ST AND I LOOKT AND BEHELD THE VIRGIN AGAIN
BEARING A CHILD IN HER ARMS
1 11:21 a NEPHI:N1ST AND THE ANGEL SAID UNTO ME
1 11:21 b ANGEL:S BEHOLD THE LAMB OF GOD
YEA EVEN THE ETERNAL FATHER
1 11:21 c ANGEL:S KNOWEST THOU THE MEANING OF THE TREE
WHICH THY FATHER SAW
1 11:22 a NEPHI:N1ST AND I ANSWERED HIM SAYING
1 11:22 b NEPHI:S YEA IT IS THE LOVE OF GOD
WHICH SHEADETH (sic) ITSELF ABROAD
1 11:22 c NEPHI:S IN THE HEARTS OF THE CHILDREN OF MEN
END QUOTE
The notes say this on 1 Nephi 11:18: QUOTE
the Son of P**c 1837 1840 1852 1879 1920 1981, RLDS 1908; not in O P 1830;
cf vss 7, 21, 32, 13:40, Mos 3:8, 15:2-5, Al 5:48, 7:10, 13:9, Eth 3:14, Lk
1:31-32; Mat 22:44-45, "The LORD said unto my Lord,...If David then call
him Lord, how is he his son?" (Ps 110:1) || Mk 12:36, Lk 20:42-43, Acts
2:33-36. END QUOTE
From the introduction, page viii, "Naturally, Joseph Smith employed the
scriptural idiom of his day, which was common in both written and spoken
religious contexts, i.e., the Elizabethan & Jacobean usage of the King
James Version translators. His own very strong rural New England/New York
grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, and spelling is also evident. The
presence of such style and spelling (and misspelling!), can no doubt tell
us a great deal about Joseph Smith, Jr., and his scribes, and we hope that
specialists will find our data useful. We have cited potentially archaic
usage via the Oxford English Dictionary. We have also provided a sampling
of parallels from the KJV Apocrypha, the Pseudepigraph, Qumran scrolls,
historical, and rabbinic writings (Talmud, Midrash, etc.).
"Indeed, as H. Grant Vest observed long ago, not only are there numerous
readings of biblical passages in the Book of Mormon which are attested here
and there in certain ancient versions of the Bible, but Joseph Smith
sometimes made alterations in those parallel readings which appear to have
been based on his personal 'taste.' This matter of taste is entirely in
order, and frequently proves to be every bit as viable as the variegated
usage chosen by the King James translators."
A paragraph later, "B. H. Roberts, H. Grant Vest, Sidney B. Sperry, and
Stanley R. Larson have each convincingly argued that Joseph Smith certainly
utilized a copy of the King James Version of the Bible whenever he came to
lengthy portions of the text of the Book of Mormon obviously paralleling
biblical passages. It is only in such a context that both the real
variants upon the plates, as well as Joseph's personal taste are made
evident. We have sought to provide access to both phenomena through
careful notes and through the insertion of KJV italics into the text of
biblical quotations. Beyond that, we have sampled herein the myriad of
short phrases which are likewise suggestive of 'quotation.' However, of
the tens of thousands of parallel phrases-in-common between the Bible and
Book of Mormon which have been listed by Hilton & Jenkins, most are random
and trivial with regard to content, and indicate nothing more than the
degree to which Joseph (and his contemporaries) had absorbed the syntax and
phraseology of the KJV Bible, as well as the degree to which the KJV
partook of English tradition, i.e., they are not actually quotations."
I found interesting the following comment in the preface to the
second edition of the Critical Text: "...the American Bible Society
has counted over 24,000 differences among only six separate pre-1830
editions of the 1611 King James Version of the Bible." If this is so,
from which edition did Joseph Smith copy his Old Testament quotations
in the Book of Mormon? That would be make an interesting study.
--
Sincerely,
Cindy Smith
_///_ // SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ //
_///_ // <`)= _<< CARPENTER _///_ //<`)= _<<
<`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ \\ _\\\_ <`)= _<< \\\ \\
\\\ \\ <`)= _<< >IXOYE=('> \\\ \\
\\\ \\_///_ // // /// _///_ // _///_ //
emory!dragon!cms <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<<
\\\ \\<`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\
GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgiastuart@apple.com (Harold Stuart) (09/18/90)
In article <Sep.14.01.19.59.1990.8825@athos.rutgers.edu> emory!dragon!cms@gatech.edu writes: > > This is in response to an earlier posting concerning whether Mary is >the Mother of God or the Mother of the Son of God. Mormons may >correct me, but it's my understanding that Mormons reject the notion >of Mary as Mother of God. LDS absolutely hold that Mary is the mother of Jesus. The confusion here may come from the LDS concept of the Trinity. We believe that God, our Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ his Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate and distinct individuals, although one in purpose, doctrine, and many other ways. Harold Stuart Disclaimer: Non-quoted portions of this posting are my opinion and my opinion alone.
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (09/18/90)
In article <Sep.14.01.19.59.1990.8825@athos.rutgers.edu> emory!dragon!cms@gatech.edu writes: > This is in response to an earlier posting concerning whether Mary is >the Mother of God or the Mother of the Son of God. Mormons may >correct me, but it's my understanding that Mormons reject the notion >of Mary as Mother of God. I defended this position by stating that >the Book of Mormon refers to Mary as Mother of God in I Nephi 11:18; >this was refuted by statements to the effect that a correction was >made so that the passage reads Mother of the Son of God. Well, we're likely to get into semantics here. Normally when LDS members (Mormons) use the word "God" they are referring to God the Father. In this sense Mary is not the mother of God. However, it is, I believe, proper to refer to Jesus as God also and Mary is of course the mother of Jesus, so such terminology would not be improper. However, if you used it in a conversation with an LDS you might have a communicatin problem unless you were very clear about what you meant. I'm not sure which BoM printing you found that particular statement in (and don't know enough about the abbreviations in the critical edition to interpret them) but there have been some printers errors over the years. I checked 2 printings (one 1982, one probably about 1960 but with the title page torn out) and both of them say, "mother of the Son of God." The 1982 printing benefits from the availibility of the original hand written manuscripts so I tend to trust it. [In fact there's a certain indirectness in the way "Mother of God" is meant in orthodox statements as well. If you read the statement naively, it seems to say that God didn't exist until Jesus' birth. This is surely not what is meant. The real intent of the statement (which in the original Greek calls Mary "God-bearer") is to emphasize the completeness of God's identification with Jesus, so that it may truly be said that the eternal Logos deigned to experience human birth and death. This whole area is rather murky. There was a group called "patripassians" that believed that the Father suffered in the crucifixion. I don't think this is technically classified as a heresy, as it was a position taken in discussions before the terms were completely clarified. But I believe once the Trinity and Incarnation were formulated, it was taken for granted that it was the specifically the Son that suffered, and presumably also experienced birth through Mary. Thus I believe Mary was seen as the Mother specifically of the Son rather than the Father. However the Trinity envisions a unity among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit tight enough that all actions of any of them are actions of all three. Thus ultimately I think we must say that the Father participated in Christ's birth and death. It is not yet clear to me whether the LDS concept of the Godhead involves so close a unity among the three persons. I suspect that formally speaking LDS could accept the phrase "mother of God" in something like the orthodox sense, meaning by God specifically the Son. But whether it would have the same significance for them that it does for orthodox Christians depends upon whether they accept the concept that all actions of the Son are ultimately actions of the Godhead as a whole. --clh]