![\"Philly](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/186\/2020\/03\/Noahs_Ark.jpg\")
<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n
Yet another article went online today \u2014 accessible at no charge to all interested readers \u2014 in Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship<\/em>.\u00a0 It was written by Jeffrey Mark Bradshaw<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe Ark and the Tent: Temple Symbolism in the Story of Noah\u201d<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Abstract:\u00a0<\/strong>Jeffrey M. Bradshaw compares Moses\u2019 tabernacle and Noah\u2019s ark, and then identifies the story of Noah as a temple related drama, drawing of temple mysticism and symbols. After examining structural similarities between ark and tabernacle and bringing into the discussion further information about the Mesopotamian flood story, he shows how Noah\u2019s ark is a beginning of a new creation, pointing out the central point of Day One in the Noah story. When Noah leaves the ark, they find themselves in a garden, not unlike the Garden of Eden in the way the Bible speaks about it. A covenant is established in signs and tokens. Noah is the new Adam. This is then followed by a fall\/Judgement scene story, even though it is Ham who is judged, not Noah. In accordance with mostly non-Mormon sources quoted, Bradshaw points out how Noah was not in \u201chis\u201d tent, but in the tent of the Shekhina, the presence of God, how being drunk was seen by the ancients as a synonym to \u201cbeing caught up in a vision of God,\u201d and how his \u201cnakedness\u201d was rather referring to garments God had made for Adam and Eve.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n [Editor\u2019s Note:\u00a0<\/strong>Part of our book chapter reprint series, this article is reprinted here as a service to the LDS community. Original pagination and page numbers have necessarily changed, otherwise the reprint has the same content as the original.<\/span><\/p>\n See Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, \u201cThe Ark and the Tent: Temple Symbolism in the Story of Noah,\u201d in\u00a0Temple Insights: Proceedings of the Interpreter Matthew B. Brown Memorial Conference, \u201cThe Temple on Mount Zion,\u201d 22 September 2012,<\/em>\u00a0ed. William J. Hamblin and David Rolph Seely (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2014),\u00a0[Page 94]<\/span>25\u201366. Further information at\u00a0https:\/\/interpreterfoundation.org\/books\/temple-insights\/<\/a>.]<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n ***<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n It\u2019s not impossible that you may have missed one of these articles from past issues of Interpreter<\/em>:<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n A. Keith Thompson, \u201cThe Doctrine of Resurrection in the Book of Mormon\u201d<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Abstract:\u00a0The doctrine of resurrection was taught by Lehi and Jacob among the first Nephites but was not mentioned again in the record until the time of Abinadi, perhaps 350 years later. In the court of King Noah that doctrine and the idea of a suffering Messiah who would bear the sins of his people and redeem them, were heresies and Abinadi paid for them with his life. While Abinadi\u2019s testimony converted Alma1<\/sub>\u00a0and the doctrine of the resurrection inspired Alma2<\/sub>\u00a0after his conversion, it was a source of schism in the church at Zarahemla along lines that remind us of the Sadducees at Jerusalem. The doctrine of the resurrection taught in the Book of Mormon is a precursor to the doctrine now understood by the Latter-day Saints in the light of modern revelation. One example is that the Nephite prophets used the term first resurrection differently than we do. But perhaps the most remarkable thing about the way that the doctrine of resurrection develops in the Book of Mormon, is that it develops consistently. That consistency bears further testimony to the prophetic mission of Joseph Smith. He could not have done that by himself.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Matthew L. Bowen, \u201cNot Leaving and Going On to Perfection\u201d<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n A Review of Samuel M. Brown\u2019s\u00a0<\/em>First Principles and Ordinances: The Fourth Article of Faith in Light of the Temple, Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute, 2014. 167 pp., index. $16.95.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Neal Rappleye, \u201cLearning Nephi\u2019s Language: Creating a Context for 1 Nephi 1:2\u201d<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Matthew Roper, \u201cThe Treason of the Geographers: Mythical \u201cMesoamerican\u201d Conspiracy and the Book of Mormon\u201d<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Abstract:\u00a0The claim that God revealed the details of Book of Mormon geography is not new, but the recent argument that there was a conspiracy while the Prophet was still alive to oppose a revealed geography is a novel innovation. A recent theory argues that the \u201cMesoamerican theory\u201d or \u201climited Mesoamerican geography\u201d originated in 1841 with Benjamin Winchester, an early Mormon missionary, writer, and dissident, who rejected the leadership of Brigham Young and the Twelve after 1844. This theory also claims that three unsigned editorials on Central America and the Book of Mormon published in the Times and Seasons on September 15 and October 1, 1842 were written by Benjamin Winchester, who successfully conspired with other dissidents to publish them against the will of the Prophet. Three articles address these claims. This first article addresses two questions: Did Joseph Smith, as some have claimed, know the details of and put forth a revealed Book of Mormon geography? Second, what is a Mesoamerican geography and does it constitute a believable motive for a proposed Winchester conspiracy?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Matthew Roper, \u201cJohn Bernhisel\u2019s Gift to a Prophet:\u00a0Incidents of Travel in Central America<\/em>\u00a0and the Book of Mormon\u201d<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Abstract:\u00a0The claim that God revealed the details of Book of Mormon geography is not new, but the recent argument that there was a conspiracy while the Prophet was still alive to oppose a revealed geography is a novel innovation. A recent theory argues that the \u201cMesoamerican theory\u201d or \u201climited Mesoamerican geography\u201d originated in 1841 with Benjamin Winchester, an early Mormon missionary, writer, and dissident, who rejected the leadership of Brigham Young and the Twelve after 1844. This theory also claims that three unsigned editorials on Central America and the Book of Mormon published in the Times and Seasons on September 15 and October 1, 1842, were written by Benjamin Winchester, who successfully conspired with other dissidents to publish them against the will of the Prophet. Three articles address these claims. The first article addressed two questions: Did Joseph Smith, as some have claimed, know the details of and put forth a revealed Book of Mormon geography? Second, what is a Mesoamerican geography and does it constitute a believable motive for a proposed Winchester conspiracy? This second article provides additional historical background on the question of Joseph Smith\u2019s thinking on the Book of Mormon by examining the influence of John L. Stephen\u2019s 1841 work,\u00a0<\/em>Incidents of Travel in Central America, upon early Latter-day Saints, including Joseph Smith.<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Steven T. Densley, \u201cA Treasure Trove of Questions\u201d<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n