Finally, a worthwhile, doctrinal message from MormonTimes. This is a very interesting article and I appreciate Mr. Welch's insights.

All I gotta say is wow. This is pretty powerful stuff and cutting edge journalism.

What an exciting theme and presentation, beginning with the introductory five points of emphasis shared by both the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon at the Temple! After reading the article, I have begun reading the online book that is offered in the article: _The Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount_ by John Welch.

Thanks for sharing!

Parrots mimic spoken English but that doesn't make them human. Joseph Smith mimicked the Bible but that doesn't make him a true prophet who spoke the word of God. Just as FARMS, BYU professors, etc. mimic scholars.

Sour grapes, Crockie, sour grapes. They don't make good whine.

I think he said, "Blessed are the cheesemakers!"

Why do anti-LDS comments still allowed on this blog? They are always negative, don't add to the conversation, and have no facts to back them other than emotion. Why the Deseret News continues to post these I have no idea. This is not the place to "debate" religion - the anti-LDS comments likely to change anyone's hearts or minds.

The Deseret News is a newspaper and not a religion. It welcomes different points of view as newspapers should do.
No religion is above another. Your religion does not have any "proof" either and someones opposite opinion is as good as yours.

To 'it is because." True the D.N is a newspaper, but the "Mormon Times" section is dedicated to the LDS because of the high % of LDS in the area. Many Mormons subscribe to the DN because of it and the Church News. Under your analogy, we should all start negatively blogging opposing religious publications, and attend other religious denominations meetings so we can "set them straight, and announce our thoughts. Whatever your beliefs, I respect them and would never write to publicly "badmouth" them.
Why do you even bother to read this section? Get a life.

To: What a Crock
While we all welcome varying points of view regarding scholarly work, I find your comments without credibility. This is a scholarly work we are talking about and yet you offer no data or opposing view. While your comments are as welcomed as others, I would say you need to exercise a little caution as to when you speak as you now have removed all doubt as to your understanding of the topic.

in a newspaper and it has a comment section here. Therefore, anybody can make comments about that wants to add it. The Deseret News does and should publish them. And this has nothing to do with checking out different religions, Ronald.

What a masterful teaching....the Sermon on the Mount. Those rich teachings enhance civilization as we use them, the Book of Mormon enhanses those teachings, we are fortunate to have it.

re: Re; What a crock | 11:02 a.m. Sept. 28, 2008

Interesting. organized religion is subjective and is more about feeling than being objective and knowing much like say... emotion.

re: Ronald | 12:42 p.m. Sept. 28, 2008

And most LDS members watch the news on ch 5. Because, its church owned.

Not reasonable nor objective again alot like emotion

re: Cheesemakers | 10:54 a.m. Sept. 28, 2008

Parmasean, right? After all, its what the flying spaghetti monster would prefer. lol.

I have known Jack Welch for a very long time. While you may choose to disagree with anything he writes, it is inaccurate in the extreme to suggest he is not a scholar. He is meticulous, thorough, knowledgeable, and possessed of a singular intellect. Ignore him at your peril.

and you're comparing a TV station to a newspaper church section article? uh...ok.

Ditto to MarkO. Jack is hardly a mimic. He is an impressive and distinguished scholar whose work in legal studies and New Testament studies is well received in Europe and the United States.

Jack is as prolific as he is intelligent. Possessed of a fine analytical mind and tireless energy, he will continue to leave a deep and lasting imprint on Mormon studies.

You can laugh if you want, but why not go to work and take him on? Throw your ideas into the public arena and let the debate begin.

Yes, this article is for those of us that believe in the Book of Mormon and the Bible. In both Sermons the Saviour taught us to love one another ( I think that includes being tolerant of others) It would be wonderful if all of us could incorporate that teaching into our lives a bit more.

"And blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God"

Jack Welch, because of his love for the scriptures, and I would venture to guess, his love for the teachings of the Saviour, has given every believer in Christ some insightful research into this topic.

Take it for what it is worth and make your own conclusions. And let us be tolerant of others views and beliefs, and love others as the Saviour taught us to love.

I study and teach comparative religion so I sometimes visit Mormon Times and the Des News, but I am not LDS.

The Sermon on the Mount has the structure of a Jewish "drasha." It was originally delivered in Aramaic, and later recorded in Greek in the synoptic gospels of the New Testament.

The sermon in BoM is more similar in style to the King James Bible, which is an English text from the 16th century, and which was widely known in 1800s America.

It is not for me to doubt whether the prophesy of Joseph Smith is valid, I accept as matter of respect that LDS testify to its truth. However, the text of BoM bears very little linguistic, structural or theological similarity to any known original text from early Christianity or from Jewish antiquity.

Scholars at non-denominational universities can say with confidence that the language & literary style of the early Christians is not really similar to either BoM or D&C.

Again, this is not to doubt the testimony of the LDS, but to offer a different, non-denominational point of view.

SJW- Cambridge, Mass.

This person who calls himself "Crock" wasn’t very tactful. But maybe "Crock" has a good question?

Instead of jumping on him for seeming negative, please listen to his question. To rephrase what I hear him asking, he pointed out that since the BOM was published well over 1,000 years after the Bible was canonized in Nice. Is it possible that somebody could have copied parts of the Bible language while making subtle changes to it to produce what appears to be a whole new work?

This article suggests that because some of the language from the "Sermon on the Mount" in the KJV parallels that of the "Sermon at the Temple" in 3NE, this could not be possible if the BOM were not true.

Crock seems to point out that this form of logical interpretation is fallacious. If you consider any other work such as a modern story, song or movie that appears to mimic an earlier published story, song, or movie; most people would conclude that the later work was likely plagiarism. I think that a judge in a copyright infringement lawsuit would probably agree.

Why would somebody who points this out be met with such disdain?

Wow leave it to a bom scholar to totally misinterpret the whole message Jesus was trying to get across. What did Jesus say to the men later on in that book when they asked him to look at how nice there place of worship was. He said I that by the time he was done there would not be one stone left on another. When Jesus died on the cross what happened again? The veil was torn in two and the temple was destroyed. Why? we didn't need it anymore because Jesus saves not the temple. Thats the point he was trying to prove the whole time. He always preached there is no way to the father but through me. Not through sealings not through oaths but through beliefe in Christ that he died for you. Most people out there get that and you don't even have to be a scholar. Crazy what happens when you actually read the bible no?

SJW
"It is not for me to doubt whether the prophesy of Joseph Smith is valid, I accept as matter of respect that LDS testify to its truth. However, the text of BoM bears very little linguistic, structural or theological similarity to any known original text from early Christianity or from Jewish antiquity."

Have you looked into Mr. Welch's claims of chiasm? It would be interesting to hear your non-lds view.

Re: Monitee
The temple was rent not because it wasn't needed anymore but because it had been defiled by false teachings. And of course the Sermon at the Temple would be similar to the Sermon on the Mount. Both were given by Jesus Christ to separate groups of people who needed to hear the same things. Don't speakers repeat the same message to different audiences when they are trying to get a point across? Also,coming to Christ and believing Him does not preclude temple covenants or ordinances. He said that baptism was essential to entering His kingdom and yet many people don't believe that either. I could point out other things but this is sufficient. Many people have "eyes that will not see" and "ears that will not hear." That denotes freedom of choice and no one will take that away from anyone.

Beinda,

You are grossly mistaken. There is no basis for interpreting the rending of the Temple veil as symbolic of "false teachings". "Teaching" did NOT occur in the Temple in or around where the Temple veil was! Teaching occurred for thousands of years in the Synagogues where the Law and the Prophets were systematically read and discussed. Some unofficial, informal "teaching" occurred in the outer courts, but these were never considered sacred parts of the Temple.

Let me repeat: You are wrong. NO "teaching" occurred in the Temple where the veil was. That is why it is NOT CORRECT to assert (blindly and erroneously, I will add) that the Temple veil was rent because of "false teachings" in the Temple.

The other interpretation DOES have MUCH support, especially from the words of Jesus Himself! The physical Temple (tabernacles, mounts with piled rocks as in "tabernacles" such as Peter tried to build on the Mount of Transfiguration) were all DONE AWAY by Jesus, who said that God dwells in a man's heart, not in Temples constructed with human hands! The NEW "temples" in which God would dwell were figurative: the hearts of people, and the congregations of believers.