USU78 Posted April 2, 2014 Author Posted April 2, 2014 The same reason manuals are frequently revamped in the church. To have the statements of living apostles and prophets included. I see absolutely no influence on the manuals from modern secular scholasticism. At least when it comes to Biblical studies.I just don't see the LDS leadership ever accepting Biblical criticism as an acceptable course of study in interpreting the Bible. Barlow's book seems to make that pretty plain, as did the writings of Talmage. But, all too often the siren lure is inescapable for those who think they understand the Bible better than the Brethren and church manuals and presume to tell us all so. To tell us that the Bible has been basically falsely rewritten by a deuteronomistic reform is to reject large segments of existing LDS manuals, and to fall within the clutch of athiests. A siren lure indeed.This sermon by Elder Oaks helped steer me away from worshipping people like Dever and Barker. (Mind you, I have many of the works of Biblical scholars; I particular respect Eisenman and Shanks). "Latter-day Saints know that true doctrine comes by revelation from God, not by scholarship or worldly wisdom." Elder Oaks points out that Latter-day Saints do not respect Biblical commentary or secular scholarship, but instead follow the scriptures as canonized and continuing church and personal revelation.Interesting. My study is done, not in a vaccuum of scholarship, but according to what I see and hear and feel in the Temple. The G-d Who inhabits Genesis is not the one Who a lot of folks perceive from the bloody conquest of Canaan.
Bob Crockett Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 (edited) Interesting. My study is done, not in a vaccuum of scholarship, but according to what I see and hear and feel in the Temple. The G-d Who inhabits Genesis is not the one Who a lot of folks perceive from the bloody conquest of Canaan.I respectfully disagree and think that you've succumbed to scholarly challenges that would make us all modern-day Marcionites, early Christians who could not conceive that God was the wrathful One in the Old Testament. I think that whatever you see and hear subjectively in the temple ought to be measured against the teachings of Church-approved manuals. (Hey, I think they are boring as all bananas and often lack insight; I've also had strong issues with Elder McConkie's NT commentary; but I'm not one of the Brethren and I feel an institutional loyalty to teach what they authorize. Plus, I think it arrogant to say that I think I know more than the manual department simply because I read and enjoy the works of athiests or Margaret Barker.) I would never get away with teaching a Gospel Doctrine class and saying, as I've heard from several here, that the God we know did not likely order the destruction of the priests of Baal or Asherah in the contest with Elijah. Or should I get away with quoting from Dever or Barker. That BYU sometimes publishes this stuff is just a sop to academicians who feel compelled to engage in secular study of the Bible. Edited April 2, 2014 by Bob Crockett
Senator Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 (edited) . I think that whatever you see and hear subjectively in the temple ought to be measured against the teachings of Church-approved manuals. Good heavens! The day that I have to take my personal revelations and vet them through church-approved manuals for correctness, is the day the church is no longer for me. Edited April 2, 2014 by Senator
USU78 Posted April 2, 2014 Author Posted April 2, 2014 Good heavens! The day that I have to my personal revelations and vet them through church-approved manuals for correctness, is the day the church is no longer for me.I never enjoyed seminary much. who knows? Maybe it was the teachers. Perhaps it was the manuals? 1
Senator Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 (edited) I never enjoyed seminary much. who knows? Maybe it was the teachers. Perhaps it was the manuals? Umm...no. I'm quite sure the problems rest with you. Edited April 2, 2014 by Senator 1
USU78 Posted April 2, 2014 Author Posted April 2, 2014 Umm...no. I'm quite sure the problems rest with you.:-D
Bob Crockett Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 Good heavens! The day that I have to take my personal revelations and vet them through church-approved manuals for correctness, is the day the church is no longer for me.I think that when one starts citing personal revelation as a basis to contradict church manuals, one is going off the reservation.
USU78 Posted April 2, 2014 Author Posted April 2, 2014 I think that when one starts citing personal revelation as a basis to contradict church manuals, one is going off the reservation.when we have our vote in general conference to make the manuals Scripture, you will have something there. Until then, please pardon my skepticism.
Senator Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 I think that when one starts citing personal revelation as a basis to contradict church manuals, one is going off the reservation. Thank heavens! There's a big, wondrous universe outside the reservation.
frank_jessop Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 Joseph was killed before he completed his translation of the bible. Had he not been murdered, it is likely we would have received more.I think, that if the perception of OT God as being a merciful AND commanding the destruction of entire peoples was false that Joseph Smith, in restoring the truth, would have made such a correction of the fundamental nature of God. Joseph Smith, did not make a correction - as best I can tell. And I think it safe to say, based on the OT account and many generations of modern Prophets, that the picture painted of God in the OT is accurate, inasmuch as God instructed Israel to destroy peoples; that God wiped out the earth save Noah and his children; that the first born of the Israel were preserved from the Destroying Angel but the not the first born of the Egyptian. I think that too often we wish to create God in accordance with our image and perception of what we think God should be like.
Senator Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 I think that too often we wish to create God in accordance with our image and perception of what we think God should be like. I wonder if the writers of ancient writ suffered from the same tendencies? 1
Bob Crockett Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 (edited) when we have our vote in general conference to make the manuals Scripture, you will have something there. Until then, please pardon my skepticism.When one is called to be a teacher or leader in the church, in my experience it comes with either the implied or explicit understanding that one adheres to the manuals. For the seminary teaching experience, the request has been explicit to the point that we are told not to bring in videos or general authority quotes not contained in the manuals. As much as I dislike the manuals, and I do, I do not feel justified in rejecting a calling because I don't like the manuals. It is quite one thing to anonymously criticize the church manuals, and quite another to stand up in front of an seminary or insitute class and intentionally cite secular scholarship in lieu of and in contradiction with the manuals. As much as I like what is coming out of secular Biblical scholarship, I don't think I would be loyal to the requirements of my calling to intentionally ignore the manuals. But, fundamentally, to almost completely reject pre-Josian reforms as self-righteous rewriting of scriptural history is definitely quite contrary to the manuals, which laud the reforms as prophet-directed and God-inspired. It is arrogant for me to think that I know better because I've read Dever. Dever is on a mission to ridicule the notion of a real God. Edited April 2, 2014 by Bob Crockett
cinepro Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 When I saw the title of this thread, my first thought was "Finally, something USU78 and the atheists can agree on!"
Bob Crockett Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 (edited) I don't reject scholarship like some Luddite because the scholar is an athiest. But, Dever's attitudes about God just permeate his writings. Lots of people disagree with him; he's just better at staking out his position, like Dawkins is a better writer than other evolutionary biologists. And, when it comes to Margaret Barker, I just don't see the fascination. She's interesting because her theology focuses upon the importance of the temple, but then again, she teaches that true temple worship was wiped out by Josiah's reform . Very antithetical to LDS teaching. Edited April 2, 2014 by Bob Crockett
USU78 Posted April 2, 2014 Author Posted April 2, 2014 he teaches that true temple worship was wiped out by Josiah's reform . Very antithetical to LDS teaching. I was unaware that the Church taught that either the 1st or 2nd Temple worship was the full Temple Worship we obtained and presently enjoy in the Restoration. My own experience is the Church is agnostic on the question that temple worship at any particular point in history is significantly the same as our present Melchizedek Priesthood supervised and run Temple Worship. 1
USU78 Posted April 2, 2014 Author Posted April 2, 2014 When I saw the title of this thread, my first thought was "Finally, something USU78 and the atheists can agree on!"-l Not a chance. Knee-jerk religiophobic trendy-lefty empty-headed dillweeds and I share very little in common . . . other than biology, of course.
Bob Crockett Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 (edited) I was unaware that the Church taught that either the 1st or 2nd Temple worship was the full Temple Worship we obtained and presently enjoy in the Restoration. My own experience is the Church is agnostic on the question that temple worship at any particular point in history is significantly the same as our present Melchizedek Priesthood supervised and run Temple Worship. I sure hope you didn't infer that all or nothing position from my statement. So please don't. I don't really have a dog in the race about what was taught in the temple before the Josian reforms, other than that the Josian reforms were required by God, according to church manuals. Edited April 2, 2014 by Bob Crockett
Bob Crockett Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 (edited) Not a chance. Knee-jerk religiophobic trendy-lefty empty-headed dillweeds and I share very little in common Except I think that trendy lefties would likely be atheist or Marcionites (the true Jesus is a portrait of a lamb draped around His shoulder) when it comes to the OT. Edited April 2, 2014 by Bob Crockett
USU78 Posted April 2, 2014 Author Posted April 2, 2014 I sure hope you didn't infer that all or nothing position from my statement. So please don't. I don't really have a dog in the race about what was taught in the temple before the Josian reforms, other than that the Josian reforms were required by God, according to church manuals. I'm far more interested in what Jeremiah has to say about the Reform, since that is a primary source, than what the Church committee on manuals have to say, since that is a secondary source. Now . . . if you can point me to a Conference talk on the subject, I would be happy to bow to that authority since, as we know, living prophet > no longer living prophet, notwithstanding each is to be considered a primary source. I am gratified that your statement on Barker's views on the Josiahan reforms was, perhaps, hyperbolic and is not coextensive with your views on that reform.
Bob Crockett Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 I don't think Barker's D.D. really qualifies her as an expert in Caananite religion. So I don't really cotton to much of what she has to say.
USU78 Posted April 2, 2014 Author Posted April 2, 2014 I don't think Barker's D.D. really qualifies her as an expert in Caananite religion. So I don't really cotton to much of what she has to say. Fair enough. We've d@mned few friends in academia, and she's definitely that. Not about to go arguing her credentials or her highly interesting views with a thought to discredit her.
Bob Crockett Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 Fair enough. We've d@mned few friends in academia, and she's definitely that. Not about to go arguing her credentials or her highly interesting views with a thought to discredit her.I really see little need to get academicians to like the Mormons. I had an graduate level economics professor who joined the Church at Berkeley and then moved to Provo to teach at BYU. He gave up much to do that. I think that it is neither trendy nor respectable to author articles favorable to the Mormon position. I was an ardent follower of high count population theorists for pre-Columbia America and noted with interest that when the scholars ever wanted to cite Dr. Sorenson they noted that he could not be trusted because he had an axe to grind.
Bikeemikey Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 Not a chance. Knee-jerk religiophobic trendy-lefty empty-headed dillweeds and I share very little in common . . . other than biology, of course. Of course this is an interesting question about the OT. If the God of the OT really was taught and read to be a real Hard-a$#@ then that makes the restoration of JS even more revelatory. Here is an awesome talk to that effect: http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1508 Part of what makes JS so remarkable is the extreme break that he made from the traditional concept of God.
Bikeemikey Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 I really see little need to get academicians to like the Mormons. I had an graduate level economics professor who joined the Church at Berkeley and then moved to Provo to teach at BYU. He gave up much to do that. I think that it is neither trendy nor respectable to author articles favorable to the Mormon position. I was an ardent follower of high count population theorists for pre-Columbia America and noted with interest that when the scholars ever wanted to cite Dr. Sorenson they noted that he could not be trusted because he had an axe to grind. What's the relevancy of this little anecdote?
Recommended Posts