Reading Scripture as "univocal"

[David T]

C.I.,

I had said that the Gospels and the Epistles cannot contradict each other and still both be Scripture. You commented:

Is Scripture the word of God?

As transmitted and interpreted and expounded through his weak servants, it is.

[mapman]

Why is it that you guys seem to have tons of examples of these problems in the Bible, but not in the LDS scriptures?

I believe this is a genuine scribal error in the Book of Mormon:

But it came to pass that Amalickiah would not suffer the Lamanites to go against the city of Nephihah to battle, but kept them down by the seashore, leaving men in every city to maintain and defend it. And thus he went on, taking possession of many cities, the city of Nephihah, and the city of Lehi, and the city of Morianton, and the city of Omner, and the city of Gid, and the city of Mulek, all of which were on the east borders by the seashore. (Alma 51:25-26) There are probably so few errors in the Book of Mormon that you can count them on one hand and none of them are doctrinal errors.

[zerinus]

I believe this is a genuine scribal error in the Book of Mormon:

But it came to pass that Amalickiah would not suffer the Lamanites to go against the city of Nephihah to battle, but kept them down by the seashore, leaving men in every city to maintain and defend it. And thus he went on, taking possession of many cities, the city of Nephihah, and the city of Lehi, and the city of Morianton, and the city of Omner, and the city of Gid, and the city of Mulek, all of which were on the east borders by the seashore. (Alma 51:25-26) There are probably so few errors in the Book of Mormon that you can count them on one hand and none of them are doctrinal errors.

What makes you think that is a contradiction? Under one set of circumstances he did not consider it wise to go against the city of Nephihah; but with the change in tactics, it became a viable proposition, and he was successful. You have omitted verse 27 which helps making it clearer:

Alma 51

:

25 But it came to pass that Amalickiah would not suffer the Lamanites to go against the city of Nephihah to battle, but kept them down by the seashore, leaving men in every city to maintain and defend it.

26 And thus he went on, taking possession of many cities, the city of Nephihah, and the city of Lehi, and the city of Morianton, and the city of Omner, and the city of Gid, and the city of Mulek, all of which were on the east borders by the seashore.

27 And thus had the Lamanites obtained,

by the cunning of Amalickiah, so many cities,

by their numberless hosts, all of which were strongly fortified after the manner of the fortifications of Moroni; all of which afforded strongholds for the Lamanites.

At first he did not consider it wise to attack the city of Nephihah; but then he changed his strategy, after which attacking that city (as well as many others) became a viable proposition.

[zerinus]

As transmitted and interpreted and expounded through his weak servants, it is.

Human errors I am sure will exist in scripture; but do you think they are of a kind that are likely to mislead us in our knowledge of the theology of the gospel?

[kantgomo]

maklelan posted:

I'm suspicious that these questions will have more to do with Mormon scripture than with the Bible, as if the Bible suddenly becomes univocal if some Mormons believe their scriptures are univocal.

I'm probably just being [insert word] here, but I ask is the Bible part of your LDS scripture or is it extra-scriptural?

[mapman]

maklelan posted:

I'm probably just being [insert word] here, but I ask is the Bible part of your LDS scripture or is it extra-scriptural?

The Bible is definetly part of our scriptures, but we believe that has been corrupted somewhat.

[mfbukowski]

You know I am really surprised that this Bowman guy doesn't know anything about Mormonism.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but cheesh, he really doesn't get anything.

[Obiwan]

You know I am really surprised that this Bowman guy doesn't know anything about Mormonism.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but cheesh, he really doesn't get anything.

The further irony about that is he's one of the most experienced, knowledgeable, and more friendly of mormonism on the anti side.

Even their best and brightest don't get even the basics of our theology, history etc. They still hold fast no matter what to even the most common and easily put down perversions of mormonism, they just fluff them up. In fact, that's one of the reasons I know anti-mormonism is ENTIRELY of the devil, not God in any form, because of that very perversion.

And it's essentially because even the most faithful and/or smartest of their faiths who "aren't" anti-mormon in any way actually understand us much much better than anti-mormons do, yet the anti-mormons are supposed to be the more knowledgeable. Of course, there are those who are just as knowledgeable if not more than any anti-mormon, and they aren't anti-mormon in any way, do mostly understand us, but simply don't believe, choosing their own way as the more accurate, which is okay and as it should be. But the bearing false witness of anti-mormonism is simply not of God in any manner, no matter how "nice" they think they are being about it. Smiling and using tender words to someone while you chop their heads off or rape them STILL won't make you justified according to your fruits. That Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith video put out by Evangelicals was just sick, and a classic example of my point.

[maklelan]

maklelan posted:

I'm probably just being [insert word] here, but I ask is the Bible part of your LDS scripture or is it extra-scriptural?

I meant uniquely Mormon scripture. The Book of Mormon, the D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price.

[mapman]

What makes you think that is a contradiction? Under one set of circumstances he did not consider it wise to go against the city of Nephihah; but with the change in tactics, it became a viable proposition, and he was successful. You have omitted verse 27 which helps making it clearer:

Alma 51

:

25 But it came to pass that Amalickiah would not suffer the Lamanites to go against the city of Nephihah to battle, but kept them down by the seashore, leaving men in every city to maintain and defend it.

26 And thus he went on, taking possession of many cities, the city of Nephihah, and the city of Lehi, and the city of Morianton, and the city of Omner, and the city of Gid, and the city of Mulek, all of which were on the east borders by the seashore.

27 And thus had the Lamanites obtained,

by the cunning of Amalickiah, so many cities,

by their numberless hosts, all of which were strongly fortified after the manner of the fortifications of Moroni; all of which afforded strongholds for the Lamanites.

At first he did not consider it wise to attack the city of Nephihah; but then he changed his strategy, after which attacking that city (as well as many others) became a viable proposition.

OK, I guess the Book of Mormon is perfecter than I thought!

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

You wrote:

You know I am really surprised that this Bowman guy doesn't know anything about Mormonism. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but cheesh, he really doesn't get anything.

And Obiwan, you wrote:

The further irony about that is he's one of the most experienced, knowledgeable, and more friendly of mormonism on the anti side. Even their best and brightest don't get even the basics of our theology, history etc. They still hold fast no matter what to even the most common and easily put down perversions of mormonism, they just fluff them up. In fact, that's one of the reasons I know anti-mormonism is ENTIRELY of the devil, not God in any form, because of that very perversion.

And it's essentially because even the most faithful and/or smartest of their faiths who "aren't" anti-mormon in any way actually understand us much much better than anti-mormons do, yet the anti-mormons are supposed to be the more knowledgeable. Of course, there are those who are just as knowledgeable if not more than any anti-mormon, and they aren't anti-mormon in any way, do mostly understand us, but simply don't believe, choosing their own way as the more accurate, which is okay and as it should be. But the bearing false witness of anti-mormonism is simply not of God in any manner, no matter how "nice" they think they are being about it. Smiling and using tender words to someone while you chop their heads off or rape them STILL won't make you justified according to your fruits. That Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith video put out by Evangelicals was just sick, and a classic example of my point.

Hey guys, you know, I'm part of this discussion forum. Why don't you address your complaints about me directly to me?

What is it exactly that you think I don't understand about Mormonism? On what point do you claim, Obiwan, that I am "bearing false witness" about Mormonism?

Obiwan, I'm not completely certain to what extent your comments were about me. It sounds like you are comparing me to someone who smiles and uses friendly words while chopping off someone's head or raping them. Should I be offended?

[Vance]

The further irony about that is he's one of the most experienced, knowledgeable, and more friendly of mormonism on the anti side.

Even their best and brightest don't get even the basics of our theology, history etc. They still hold fast no matter what to even the most common and easily put down perversions of mormonism, they just fluff them up. In fact, that's one of the reasons I know anti-mormonism is ENTIRELY of the devil, not God in any form, because of that very perversion.

And it's essentially because even the most faithful and/or smartest of their faiths who "aren't" anti-mormon in any way actually understand us much much better than anti-mormons do, yet the anti-mormons are supposed to be the more knowledgeable. Of course, there are those who are just as knowledgeable if not more than any anti-mormon, and they aren't anti-mormon in any way, do mostly understand us, but simply don't believe, choosing their own way as the more accurate, which is okay and as it should be. But the bearing false witness of anti-mormonism is simply not of God in any manner, no matter how "nice" they think they are being about it. Smiling and using tender words to someone while you chop their heads off or rape them STILL won't make you justified according to your fruits. That Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith video put out by Evangelicals was just sick, and a classic example of my point.

And thus is fulfilled the word of God.

2 Nephi 28:29 Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!

30 For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.

31 Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Rob, I am going to try to address your points here - but it may be in a bit of a round about sort of way.

1. The point keeps being made that this is a bad way to read the Bible, but I never hear any Mormon warning about the dangers of reading the Book of Mormon or the other LDS scriptures as univocal. One Mormon here (Dan) admitted, when I asked him, that on his view it would also be a mistake to read the LDS scriptures as univocal, but this was a grudging concession at best. I would like to ask: Do you think Mormons should read the LDS scriptures (the "Triple Combination") univocally? In your own reading of the scriptures, do you assume, at least as a working assumption, that the Book of Mormon will agree with the Book of Abraham? Do you assume that 1 Nephi will agree with Moroni?

I don't think its necessary to start from this assumption. There are other issues here too, which I realize you probably aren't attempting to address, but which I think are necessary. The basic question is simply that of hermeneutics. What does the text mean? There are, in my opinion, lots of different ways to read texts and lots of possible meanings. We might decide, for example, that the most important meaning of a text is that which the author intended. We might decide that the most important meaning is that which agrees with our pre-decided theological perspective. Certainly we see all the time polemical arguments that take as their meaning that interpretation which is most useful to an argument. At any rate, we place interpretations into different hierarchies, and on some level we adopt a meaning (which may be different depending on which context we are in). The problem of course is in insisting that there aren't separate meanings - to take a theologically motivated reading of the text, for example, and insist that it is what the author intended. This always results in a misreading of the text. I think though that this is where your question breaks down some. Within LDS scriptural studies we can see several kinds of readings. We have scholarly readings which attempt to produce a text-critical and historical modeling for the text. We have theological readings. We have (to use a phrase which the Book of Mormon) the notion of likening the text unto ourselves - radically reinterpreting it in a way that affects our own spirituality.

To this end, some of these readings would seem to be univocal. That is, if we have a theologically motivated reading (and not a reading which attempts to draw theology out from the text), then it is probably univocal - it is being read to a pre-existing standard. If we have a reader-response type reading (as suggested by Nephi), then that too is probably a univocal reading. A text-critical and historical analysis probably is not univocal. I think that all of these readings have a great deal of value as long as we don't (as I just noted) confuse what we are doing and mistake one kind of reading for another, or to assert that our way of reading is in fact the only way of reading the text.

2. Assuming that you take the view that none of the scriptures should be read as univocal, would it then follow that from your perspective we should be neither surprised nor troubled if, say, the Book of Abraham contradicted the Book of Moses?

No, I don't think we should be either surprised or troubled. I really liked what Larry Hurtado said in his book Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (I assume you are familiar with Hurtado?). He suggested at the beginning that one of the great problems that exists between what he called the "anti-critical apologists" (he wasn't intending a slur by this remark) and the so-called history of religion types was a commonly held assertion: that something cannot be both revealed and evolved at the same time. That is, that for the history of religion crowd, if you could show that religion was a cultural movement that changed and adapted, then it couldn't also be revealed - and for the anti-critical apologist, the same conditions exist. So the history of religion types attempt to show that it is a cultural movement that changes, while the anti-critical apologists do the opposite. If we throw out that assumption though, the issue goes away - and this is Hurtado's point of view. Religion can both change and develop and be revealed at the same time. If we accept this premise, then we have to accept that in different situations true religion can look quite differently. Now, What does this mean for your question? Obviously (as I noted above) it will depend on what kind of reading we are doing of the text, but within a text-critical and historical reading (at the very least), such contradictions aren't just likely to be found, they will be expected - particularly as scriptural accounts reinterpret the same narratives over and over again. (Although in the case of both the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham we also have to include the fact that some of the differences are quite obviously influenced by changes in Joseph Smith's knowledge and belief).

3. Hypothetically, if the texts of the 66 books that constitute the Protestant canon of the Bible were perfectly preserved, would your objections to reading the Bible univocally be moot? In other words, is your criticism of reading the Bible univocally grounded on the belief that the texts have been imperfectly transmitted?

Once again, it depends on the reading of the text. But certainly I would not expect a univocal text. It could, of course, be read in such a way.

4. Granted for the sake of discussion that you do not view the whole Bible as univocal, would you tend to view a single author in the Bible, or a single book in the Bible, as internally coherent, or do you dismiss the internal coherence of each book of the Bible as well as the coherence of the Bible as a whole?

I think this is a case by case situation. It's hard to miss the fact that early on, Paul seems to believe quite emphatically that he will still be alive at the second coming, and will be lifted up to greet the descending Lord. But later on, he seems to have recognized that this event is going to happen some distance into the future. So if we assume that the texts that we have are original (which I do not believe), I think we could argue that texts that were written by a single person at a single point in time should have some internal coherency. But that this does not extent to texts written over a longer period of time by one or more authors, nor does it extend to the entire corpus of a single author (as is the case with Paul).

5. Suppose, hypothetically speaking, that a reader approached the Bible as univocal, carefully read the whole Bible from that perspective, and made every effort to develop a unified theological outlook or system that integrated as much as possible the teachings of all of the books of the Bible. Would you think that such a theological system would look more like an LDS doctrinal system or more like an evangelical Protestant doctrinal system?

I really don't know. I think that the problem is that you would be hard pressed to find a hypothetical reader who wasn't already predisposed to set of readings or another. And that predisposition is going to skew the outcome.

6. In the doctrinally oriented curricula published by the LDS Church, such as Gospel Principles, quotations and citations from all of the Standard Works are presented side by side in support of LDS doctrinal positions. One may typically see such publications citing texts from the Old Testament, the Book of Mormon, D&C, and the Book of Abraham, and using these texts to develop a coherent theological narrative or doctrinal concept. Is this a legitimate practice, or is the LDS Church curricula also guilty of illegitimately reading the scriptures as univocal?

As I pointed out, this is certainly one way to read the texts, but it isn't the only way, nor is it necessarily the most valid way. Certainly we shouldn't confuse this approach with presenting the intentions of the authors of scripture.

7. Are you aware of any warnings from any LDS Church presidents or prophets, or any of the GAs, about the error of reading the extrabiblical scriptures of the LDS Church as univocal? Have any leaders of the LDS Church ever taught that the books in the Book of Mormon cannot be assumed to reflect a coherent theological position, or that it is a mistake to assume that the Book of Abraham will agree with the Book of Moses, or that Joseph's later revelations in D&C correct or supplant some of the earlier revelations in D&C?

I think that the Book of Mormon itself makes this kind of suggestion.

8. Do you approach the interpretation of the scriptures according to the teachings of the living prophets, or according to your own academic standards--or do you see no conflict between the two?

I don't see any conflict between the two. I think that those who see conflict have decided that one particular model of reading is more valid than the others - and so insist that it is the only appropriate way.

So, are you a one model kind of reader, or do you use different hierarchies of meaning yourself as the need arises?

Ben McGuire

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski,

You wrote:

And Obiwan, you wrote:

Hey guys, you know, I'm part of this discussion forum. Why don't you address your complaints about me directly to me?

What is it exactly that you think I don't understand about Mormonism? On what point do you claim, Obiwan, that I am "bearing false witness" about Mormonism?

Obiwan, I'm not completely certain to what extent your comments were about me. It sounds like you are comparing me to someone who smiles and uses friendly words while chopping off someone's head or raping them. Should I be offended?

I've probably made 5 or 6 posts addressing you and you haven't responded to any of them. Since you were ignoring me, I started posting "about" you.

That was both here and on other threads.

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

You wrote:

I've probably made 5 or 6 posts addressing you and you haven't responded to any of them. Since you were ignoring me, I started posting "about" you.

That was both here and on other threads.

I reviewed this thread. You posted twice earlier. The first post was a rather general comment (about the news not being univocal) and was not addressed directly to me. In the second post you made a comment about salvation and acknowledged that the topic was probably one for another thread.

I know for a fact that I have responded to at least some of your posts on other threads. I can't respond to everything, as I'm sure you understand. I seem to be one of the very few evangelicals who is posting regularly here, and there are a lot of Mormons posting.

In any case, if you have a comment that is about me personally, especially an accusation or criticism, I think you should direct it to me. And how about an explanation of what it is that I supposedly don't understand about Mormonism? What is the point of claiming that I supposedly "don't know anything about Mormonism" if you aren't going to give even a single example?

[Vance]

Rob, I am going to try to address your points here - but it may be in a bit of a round about sort of way.

I don't think its necessary to start from this assumption. There are other issues here too, which I realize you probably aren't attempting to address, but which I think are necessary. The basic question is simply that of hermeneutics. What does the text mean? There are, in my opinion, lots of different ways to read texts and lots of possible meanings. We might decide, for example, that the most important meaning of a text is that which the author intended. We might decide that the most important meaning is that which agrees with our pre-decided theological perspective. Certainly we see all the time polemical arguments that take as their meaning that interpretation which is most useful to an argument. At any rate, we place interpretations into different hierarchies, and on some level we adopt a meaning (which may be different depending on which context we are in). The problem of course is in insisting that there aren't separate meanings - to take a theologically motivated reading of the text, for example, and insist that it is what the author intended. This always results in a misreading of the text. I think though that this is where your question breaks down some. Within LDS scriptural studies we can see several kinds of readings. We have scholarly readings which attempt to produce a text-critical and historical modeling for the text. We have theological readings. We have (to use a phrase which the Book of Mormon) the notion of likening the text unto ourselves - radically reinterpreting it in a way that affects our own spirituality.

To this end, some of these readings would seem to be univocal. That is, if we have a theologically motivated reading (and not a reading which attempts to draw theology out from the text), then it is probably univocal - it is being read to a pre-existing standard. If we have a reader-response type reading (as suggested by Nephi), then that too is probably a univocal reading. A text-critical and historical analysis probably is not univocal. I think that all of these readings have a great deal of value as long as we don't (as I just noted) confuse what we are doing and mistake one kind of reading for another, or to assert that our way of reading is in fact the only way of reading the text.

No, I don't think we should be either surprised or troubled. I really liked what Larry Hurtado said in his book Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (I assume you are familiar with Hurtado?). He suggested at the beginning that one of the great problems that exists between what he called the "anti-critical apologists" (he wasn't intending a slur by this remark) and the so-called history of religion types was a commonly held assertion: that something cannot be both revealed and evolved at the same time. That is, that for the history of religion crowd, if you could show that religion was a cultural movement that changed and adapted, then it couldn't also be revealed - and for the anti-critical apologist, the same conditions exist. So the history of religion types attempt to show that it is a cultural movement that changes, while the anti-critical apologists do the opposite. If we throw out that assumption though, the issue goes away - and this is Hurtado's point of view. Religion can both change and develop and be revealed at the same time. If we accept this premise, then we have to accept that in different situations true religion can look quite differently. Now, What does this mean for your question? Obviously (as I noted above) it will depend on what kind of reading we are doing of the text, but within a text-critical and historical reading (at the very least), such contradictions aren't just likely to be found, they will be expected - particularly as scriptural accounts reinterpret the same narratives over and over again. (Although in the case of both the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham we also have to include the fact that some of the differences are quite obviously influenced by changes in Joseph Smith's knowledge and belief).

Once again, it depends on the reading of the text. But certainly I would not expect a univocal text. It could, of course, be read in such a way.

I think this is a case by case situation. It's hard to miss the fact that early on, Paul seems to believe quite emphatically that he will still be alive at the second coming, and will be lifted up to greet the descending Lord. But later on, he seems to have recognized that this event is going to happen some distance into the future. So if we assume that the texts that we have are original (which I do not believe), I think we could argue that texts that were written by a single person at a single point in time should have some internal coherency. But that this does not extent to texts written over a longer period of time by one or more authors, nor does it extend to the entire corpus of a single author (as is the case with Paul).

I really don't know. I think that the problem is that you would be hard pressed to find a hypothetical reader who wasn't already predisposed to set of readings or another. And that predisposition is going to skew the outcome.

As I pointed out, this is certainly one way to read the texts, but it isn't the only way, nor is it necessarily the most valid way. Certainly we shouldn't confuse this approach with presenting the intentions of the authors of scripture.

I think that the Book of Mormon itself makes this kind of suggestion.

I don't see any conflict between the two. I think that those who see conflict have decided that one particular model of reading is more valid than the others - and so insist that it is the only appropriate way.

So, are you a one model kind of reader, or do you use different hierarchies of meaning yourself as the need arises?

Ben McGuire

Very interesting and thoughtful!

Thanks for posting.

[Confidential Informant]

Is Scripture the word of God?

As a lawyer, before I can answer this question I need to know two things:

1. How do you define scripture?

2. How do you define "word of God"?

Until you actually define these terms,the question is meaningless.

C.I.

[Rob Bowman]

C.I.,

I asked: Is Scripture the word of God? You replied:

As a lawyer, before I can answer this question I need to know two things:

1. How do you define scripture?

2. How do you define "word of God"?

Until you actually define these terms,the question is meaningless.

I'm feeling especially cooperative, so I will allow you to define both terms as you see fit. If I have a problem with your definitions, I'll let you know.

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski,

You wrote:

I reviewed this thread. You posted twice earlier. The first post was a rather general comment (about the news not being univocal) and was not addressed directly to me. In the second post you made a comment about salvation and acknowledged that the topic was probably one for another thread.

I know for a fact that I have responded to at least some of your posts on other threads. I can't respond to everything, as I'm sure you understand. I seem to be one of the very few evangelicals who is posting regularly here, and there are a lot of Mormons posting.

In any case, if you have a comment that is about me personally, especially an accusation or criticism, I think you should direct it to me. And how about an explanation of what it is that I supposedly don't understand about Mormonism? What is the point of claiming that I supposedly "don't know anything about Mormonism" if you aren't going to give even a single example?

I think the mere fact that you started this thread presumably asking a series of questions to which you at least ostensibly did not know the answers and got so many very consistent answers that we do not expect books of scripture to be "univocal", is itself strong evidence that you do not understand much about the Mormon mindset, yet you persist in being critical of what you do not understand.

Another glaring example was on another thread where you asked if there could be "Christians" in the Old Testament, when as dispensationalists, it should be clear that we believe that the gospel has been on the earth and repeatedly lost since Adam.

There are other, more detailed examples, but for one who does not understand the Mormon view of the nature of revelation and the fact that we are dispensationalists, it is hard to imagine how one could actually have enough hubris to think that he could come up with relevant arguments critical to our position.

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

You wrote:

I think the mere fact that you started this thread presumably asking a series of questions to which you at least ostensibly did not know the answers and got so many very consistent answers that we do not expect books of scripture to be "univocal", is itself strong evidence that you do not understand much about the Mormon mindset, yet you persist in being critical of what you do not understand.

This is a rather glaring example of the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" trap. If I assume I know what Mormons believe, you will criticize me for not asking. If I ask, it shows I don't already know. I feel confident you would not apply this standard to yourself or your fellow Mormons, even though I have been asked all sorts of ignorant questions by some of the Mormon forum members in the short time I have been here.

The fact is that Mormons do not all hold the same view on the questions I asked. The responses I received bear that out.

You wrote:

Another glaring example was on another thread where you asked if there could be "Christians" in the Old Testament, when as dispensationalists, it should be clear that we believe that the gospel has been on the earth and repeatedly lost since Adam.

That wasn't my question. Perhaps you could go back and re-read my question.

You wrote:

There are other, more detailed examples, but for one who does not understand the Mormon view of the nature of revelation and the fact that we are dispensationalists, it is hard to imagine how one could actually have enough hubris to think that he could come up with relevant arguments critical to our position.

Your claim that I don't understand these aspects of the LDS position is mistaken. And I certainly understand Mormonism far, far better than many of the Mormons here understand evangelicalism, though that doesn't stop them from expressing rather harsh criticisms of what they don't understand.

[Vance]

If I assume I know what Mormons believe, you will criticize me for not asking.

ONLY if you get it wrong.

If I ask, it shows I don't already know.

Better to ask and merely hint that you might be ignorant, than to ignorantly speak and remove all doubt.

I assume you know I feel confident you would not apply this standard to yourself or your fellow Mormons, . . .

Do you know him well enough to make this assumption? Or do you just assume that all Mormons use double standards?

(Double standards!!! An anti-Mormon complaining about the use of double standards? Oh the irony!!!)

Your claim that I don't understand these aspects of the LDS position is mistaken. And I certainly understand Mormonism far, far better than many of the Mormons here understand evangelicalism, though that doesn't stop them from expressing rather harsh criticisms of what they don't understand.

As if the doctrines you espouse are universally understood or believed across the "Evangelical" spectrum.

Well, if I was going to spend my life attacking the beliefs of "evangelicals" then you would have reason to complain about my ignorance of things "evangelical". But since I am only interested in defending my own Church and beliefs, why would you even care if I understand "evangelical" stuff or not?

After all, I don't(nor does the LDS Church) have a web site/organization dedicated to attacking individuals or churches.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

The fact is that I understand Mormonism very well. So far the assertions that I don't understand anything about Mormonism have proven to be empty rhetoric.

You wrote:

Well, if I was going to spend my life attacking the beliefs of "evangelicals" then you would have reason to complain about my ignorance of things "evangelical". But since I am only interested in defending my own Church and beliefs, why would you even care if I understand "evangelical" stuff or not? After all, I don't(nor does the LDS Church) have a web site/organization dedicated to attacking individuals or churches.

This old chestnut. Vance, your entire religion is predicated on criticism of evangelical Christianity. The first missionary lesson is all about how my church and all other evangelical (and non-evangelical) churches are part of the monstrosity known as the Great Apostasy. The missionaries teach that we "live in spiritual darkness" and that we "reject the gospel" ("Preach My Gospel", 33). In opposing Mormonism, we are defending what we consider to be the true gospel.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Vance,

The fact is that I understand Mormonism very well. So far the assertions that I don't understand anything about Mormonism have proven to be empty rhetoric.

You wrote:

This old chestnut. Vance, your entire religion is predicated on criticism of evangelical Christianity. The first missionary lesson is all about how my church and all other evangelical (and non-evangelical) churches are part of the monstrosity known as the Great Apostasy. The missionaries teach that we "live in spiritual darkness" and that we "reject the gospel" ("Preach My Gospel", 33). In opposing Mormonism, we are defending what we consider to be the true gospel.

Monstrosity is a bit strong. And as far as attacking your religion, what you talked about, that would be the extent of the missionaries talking about other chuches. WE do talk about the GA. THe rest of the discussion focus on LDS beliefs and teachings and has nothing really to do with other churches. BTW Evangelical Christianity isn't brought up specifically.

We think there was a general falling not because all the other churches are evil and are there to corrupt people. Some people were corrupt but the apostacy happened because the apostles and prohpets were killed. There was no longer that revelation that had happened for thousands of years before. I figure you knew this but it might help to bring it up again.

[Uncertain]

Rob, I am going to try to address your points here - but it may be in a bit of a round about sort of way.

I don't think its necessary to start from this assumption. There are other issues here too, which I realize you probably aren't attempting to address, but which I think are necessary. The basic question is simply that of hermeneutics. What does the text mean? There are, in my opinion, lots of different ways to read texts and lots of possible meanings. We might decide, for example, that the most important meaning of a text is that which the author intended. We might decide that the most important meaning is that which agrees with our pre-decided theological perspective. Certainly we see all the time polemical arguments that take as their meaning that interpretation which is most useful to an argument. At any rate, we place interpretations into different hierarchies, and on some level we adopt a meaning (which may be different depending on which context we are in). The problem of course is in insisting that there aren't separate meanings - to take a theologically motivated reading of the text, for example, and insist that it is what the author intended. This always results in a misreading of the text. I think though that this is where your question breaks down some. Within LDS scriptural studies we can see several kinds of readings. We have scholarly readings which attempt to produce a text-critical and historical modeling for the text. We have theological readings. We have (to use a phrase which the Book of Mormon) the notion of likening the text unto ourselves - radically reinterpreting it in a way that affects our own spirituality.

To this end, some of these readings would seem to be univocal. That is, if we have a theologically motivated reading (and not a reading which attempts to draw theology out from the text), then it is probably univocal - it is being read to a pre-existing standard. If we have a reader-response type reading (as suggested by Nephi), then that too is probably a univocal reading. A text-critical and historical analysis probably is not univocal. I think that all of these readings have a great deal of value as long as we don't (as I just noted) confuse what we are doing and mistake one kind of reading for another, or to assert that our way of reading is in fact the only way of reading the text.

No, I don't think we should be either surprised or troubled. I really liked what Larry Hurtado said in his book Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (I assume you are familiar with Hurtado?). He suggested at the beginning that one of the great problems that exists between what he called the "anti-critical apologists" (he wasn't intending a slur by this remark) and the so-called history of religion types was a commonly held assertion: that something cannot be both revealed and evolved at the same time. That is, that for the history of religion crowd, if you could show that religion was a cultural movement that changed and adapted, then it couldn't also be revealed - and for the anti-critical apologist, the same conditions exist. So the history of religion types attempt to show that it is a cultural movement that changes, while the anti-critical apologists do the opposite. If we throw out that assumption though, the issue goes away - and this is Hurtado's point of view. Religion can both change and develop and be revealed at the same time. If we accept this premise, then we have to accept that in different situations true religion can look quite differently. Now, What does this mean for your question? Obviously (as I noted above) it will depend on what kind of reading we are doing of the text, but within a text-critical and historical reading (at the very least), such contradictions aren't just likely to be found, they will be expected - particularly as scriptural accounts reinterpret the same narratives over and over again. (Although in the case of both the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham we also have to include the fact that some of the differences are quite obviously influenced by changes in Joseph Smith's knowledge and belief).

Once again, it depends on the reading of the text. But certainly I would not expect a univocal text. It could, of course, be read in such a way.

I think this is a case by case situation. It's hard to miss the fact that early on, Paul seems to believe quite emphatically that he will still be alive at the second coming, and will be lifted up to greet the descending Lord. But later on, he seems to have recognized that this event is going to happen some distance into the future. So if we assume that the texts that we have are original (which I do not believe), I think we could argue that texts that were written by a single person at a single point in time should have some internal coherency. But that this does not extent to texts written over a longer period of time by one or more authors, nor does it extend to the entire corpus of a single author (as is the case with Paul).

I really don't know. I think that the problem is that you would be hard pressed to find a hypothetical reader who wasn't already predisposed to set of readings or another. And that predisposition is going to skew the outcome.

As I pointed out, this is certainly one way to read the texts, but it isn't the only way, nor is it necessarily the most valid way. Certainly we shouldn't confuse this approach with presenting the intentions of the authors of scripture.

I think that the Book of Mormon itself makes this kind of suggestion.

I don't see any conflict between the two. I think that those who see conflict have decided that one particular model of reading is more valid than the others - and so insist that it is the only appropriate way.

So, are you a one model kind of reader, or do you use different hierarchies of meaning yourself as the need arises?

Ben McGuire

Hi Ben

And interesting post and one I by and large agree with. I did have a question concerning the statement I bolded. As I understand it the scriptures are the primary source for LDS doctrine. As such theology drawn from the text represents those beliefs held to be true. For example when we read in D&C 130:22 that God has a body of flesh and bone LDS would view this as accurately describing a fundamental attribute of God and their theology is informed thereby. Given this is the case this appears to require to a large degree the assumption that the scriptural text should be read as univocal. I mean if scripture is taken as the basis of correct theology in which correct theology is defined as that set of teachings that accurately describe how the world really is then by definition scripture should not contradict. If it does contradict then one or another set of scripture must not be accurately describing how the world really is. And one or another set of scripture must be discarded as not a reliable means to obtain correct theology. I mean if scripture A really does teach that God has a body of spirit and scripture B really does teach that God has a body of flesh and bone one of them must be wrong. Now in practice this situation never arises instead we get something like what Rob describes. Carefully reading the scriptures and making every effort to develop a unified theological outlook or system that integrates as much as possible the teachings of all of the scriptures. But implicitly in the whole process is the underlying assumption that scripture does teach a unified and consistent theology even if at times this might be difficult to see. For example if Amulek appears to teach that there is only one God (Alma 11:26-29) this scripture doesn't really mean what it appears to straightforwardly say instead this particular scripture should be interpreted in context with all the other scriptures describing Gods nature to arrive at a "univocal" description of Gods nature. So at least to me as scripture is used in the LDS church to obtain correct theology (which is how Rob views scripture should be used if I am not mistaken) the implicit assumption is that scripture should be read in a univocal fashion and that scripture does not contradict itself. Regardless of possible historical or scholarly readings which might assume otherwise.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Vance]

The fact is that I understand Mormonism very well.

Perhaps. But probably not as well as you think.

So far the assertions that I don't understand anything about Mormonism . . .

I don't recall anyone claiming that, so CFR!!

This old chestnut. Vance, your entire religion is predicated on criticism of evangelical Christianity.

Ah, yes, this old chestnut. CFR.

The first missionary lesson is all about how my church and all other evangelical (and non-evangelical) churches are part of the monstrosity known as the Great Apostasy.

Even you admit that a great apostasy has occurred, or are you a closet Catholic?

The Bible is quite clear about the existence of an apostasy between the first and second coming of the Lord, is it not? So then, it isn't a matter of the existence of an apostasy, but rather the timing and extent of it. Right?

If "sola scriptura" were a true doctrine, then the information provided in the Bible would be sufficient to form a consensus on said timing and extent, wouldn't you say?

edited to add,

Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Does "not sparing the flock" mean what it says or not?

The missionaries teach that we "live in spiritual darkness" and that we "reject the gospel" ("Preach My Gospel", 33).

Sorry, but I don't see that as an attack on an individual or on a specific church or organization.

Also, since the missionaries teach the true Gospel, which you reject, to say that you "reject the gospel" is a true statement.

And having rejected the true Gospel of Jesus Christ you then "live in spiritual darkness". Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't true.

In opposing Mormonism, we are defending what we consider to be the true gospel.

"opposing"? Hah, what you do is much more than "opposing" or "defending". If you were even half as critical of your own religious stuff as you are of mine, you would see larger flaws in your own than in mine.

All I can say is C.S Lewis was right when he said,