Liberal And Conservative Views Of What Is Scripture

[stemelbow]

I can't be the only one. lately I've noticed some back and forth between Dan Peterson, William Hamblin and others with David Bokovoy. I like Bokovoy. I've read (last summer) his most recent book and found it incredibly insightful. I think I may have mentioned it in different posts here.

recently David took issue with a article in the DesNews by Peterson and Hamblin:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865619301/What-is-scripture.html

David's response is found here:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2015/01/what-is-scripture-academic-versus-devotional-definitions/

In his response David takes issue with the conservative vs liberal concepts of what is scripture.

Says David,

The authors state that “conservatives” define scripture as revelations revealed from God, whereas “liberals” use the term “scripture” in reference to texts that a community defines as sacred.

This is not an accurate characterization.

Says the original article from Peterson and Hamblin:

Liberals and conservatives within a denomination often split over their understanding of scripture. For conservatives, “scripture” refers to revelations that are authoritative because they were revealed from God. Some liberals, on the other hand, use the term “scripture” to refer to books that a religious community accepts as canonical; for them, scripture is what’s written and accepted as authoritative by humans.

I'm liberal in regards to scripture as defined by Peterson and Hamblin. I make no bones about that. And really take no issue with their piece. I simply take issue with the divisiveness that seems to have been created here. I mentioned this in another thread recently as well.

David seems to mischaracterize what Peterson and Hamblin have said. For one, they say "some liberals" when describing a view of scripture that I, for one, readily accept. For another, I don't see them arguing against this, "All believers, whether “conservative” or “liberal,” accept sacred text as “scripture.”"

it seems to me that Peterson and Hamblin represent, in many Mormon academic minds, apologists. And apologetics is problematic on such a view, it seems, because it represents, by and large, a conservative view of religion. This little incident is just the latest but as many of us know this little battle between apologists and liberal Mormon studies has gone on for a while (no need to even reference a certain event 2 years ago as this divide has only grown it seems). And to simplify the grouping that way is incorrect I know. Truth is many liberal scholars of Mormonism can rightly be considered apologists, at least in some matters. Many such liberal scholars don't want o be a part of the label. The word itself, it seems, carries negative connotations. I wonder then why, though.

As I said I'm far more liberal than conservative on the question of what is scripture. I just am. But I really think the well poisoning of Mormon apologetics, most often coming from the liberal scholars, is disappointing, disrespectful, divisive and needs to stop.

Disagree all we like. There's no need to think there is not differing views of what is scripture within the LDS community. And there's no need to argue the differing views are problematic necessarily.

Comment however you like. You want to talk more about whether there is accuracy in Peterson/Hamblin's view. Please do. If you disagree, please bring it. I want to understand this better, myself.

[thesometimesaint]

I think a dictionary is a good thing to use.

SEE http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scripture

[Ahab]

D&C 68:1-5 is pretty clear about what constitutes scripture, and there is a similar verse in the NT that says pretty much the same thing.

Can't do much better than to see how our Lord and his prophets define what scripture is.

[Calm]

"And apologetics is problematic on such a view, it seems, because it represents, by and large, a conservative view of religion."

 

Not according to a lot of comments we get at Fairmormon.

 

It all depends on the topic.  Apologetics is just a general term for defending a position…David is as much an apologist as Dan and Bill, it is a shame that people see it as a conservative position (unless they define themselves as conservative and an apologist disagrees with them) and assume such when it varies so much, both individually and in general (some positions of the LDS are conservative, others are very 'liberal' in regards to religion such as an open canon).

Edited January 14, 2015 by calmoriah

[tonie]

I can't be the only one. lately I've noticed some back and forth between Dan Peterson, William Hamblin and others with David Bokovoy. I like Bokovoy. I've read (last summer) his most recent book and found it incredibly insightful. I think I may have mentioned it in different posts here.

recently David took issue with a article in the DesNews by Peterson and Hamblin:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865619301/What-is-scripture.html

David's response is found here:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2015/01/what-is-scripture-academic-versus-devotional-definitions/

In his response David takes issue with the conservative vs liberal concepts of what is scripture.

Says David,

Says the original article from Peterson and Hamblin:

I'm liberal in regards to scripture as defined by Peterson and Hamblin. I make no bones about that. And really take no issue with their piece. I simply take issue with the divisiveness that seems to have been created here. I mentioned this in another thread recently as well.

David seems to mischaracterize what Peterson and Hamblin have said. For one, they say "some liberals" when describing a view of scripture that I, for one, readily accept. For another, I don't see them arguing against this, "All believers, whether “conservative” or “liberal,” accept sacred text as “scripture.”"

it seems to me that Peterson and Hamblin represent, in many Mormon academic minds, apologists. And apologetics is problematic on such a view, it seems, because it represents, by and large, a conservative view of religion. This little incident is just the latest but as many of us know this little battle between apologists and liberal Mormon studies has gone on for a while (no need to even reference a certain event 2 years ago as this divide has only grown it seems). And to simplify the grouping that way is incorrect I know. Truth is many liberal scholars of Mormonism can rightly be considered apologists, at least in some matters. Many such liberal scholars don't want o be a part of the label. The word itself, it seems, carries negative connotations. I wonder then why, though.

As I said I'm far more liberal than conservative on the question of what is scripture. I just am. But I really think the well poisoning of Mormon apologetics, most often coming from the liberal scholars, is disappointing, disrespectful, divisive and needs to stop.

Disagree all we like. There's no need to think there is not differing views of what is scripture within the LDS community. And there's no need to argue the differing views are problematic necessarily.

Comment however you like. You want to talk more about whether there is accuracy in Peterson/Hamblin's view. Please do. If you disagree, please bring it. I want to understand this better, myself.

 

 

Why waste your time allowing someone else to define you.

 

A good rule of thumb, regarding discourse, is to simply ignore as those who bandy rhetoric riddled with the perjorative use of "liberal" and obviously self serving use of "conservative".  Hamblin and Peterson ONLY speak for themselves, and it is a shame that a Church owned News Paper published such self serving drivel.

[stemelbow]

D&C 68:1-5 is pretty clear about what constitutes scripture, and there is a similar verse in the NT that says pretty much the same thing.

Can't do much better than to see how our Lord and his prophets define what scripture is.

Great. So whatever is spoken when moved upon by the Holy Ghost is scripture. Now we just need to know whether all that has been spoken when moved upon by the Holy Ghost has been recorded. and whether all that is recorded is that which was written after such spoken. No?

[stemelbow]

Why waste your time allowing someone else to define you.

 

A good rule of thumb, regarding discourse, is to simply ignore as those who bandy rhetoric riddled with the perjorative use of "liberal" and obviously self serving use of "conservative".  Hamblin and Peterson ONLY speak for themselves, and it is a shame that a Church owned News Paper published such self serving drivel.

This is pretty nonresponsive but perhaps helps set up the problem I see developing, or developed at the very least.

Seriously, are you trying to suggest there is no liberal or conservative view when it comes to religion and scripture? No one has defined me. You have the exactly backwards.

[stemelbow]

"And apologetics is problematic on such a view, it seems, because it represents, by and large, a conservative view of religion."

 

Not according to a lot of comments we get at Fairmormon.

 

It all depends on the topic.  Apologetics is just a general term for defending a position…David is as much an apologist as Dan and Bill, it is a shame that people see it as a conservative position (unless they define themselves as conservative and an apologist disagrees with them) and assume such when it varies so much, both individually and in general (some positions of the LDS are conservative, others are very 'liberal' in regards to religion such as an open canon).

I agree with you. I would say, though, it seems pretty clear the movement that has been going for a while now. There is an effort to divide the scholarly world of Mormonism into apologist versus not apologist. Am I wrong?

[Ahab]

Great. So whatever is spoken when moved upon by the Holy Ghost is scripture. Now we just need to know whether all that has been spoken when moved upon by the Holy Ghost has been recorded. and whether all that is recorded is that which was written after such spoken. No?

No, we don't need to know that. We don't need to go in search of all that has been written as holy men were moved upon by the Holy Spirit to write. We could do that, if we wanted to, and it may do us some good if we do, but we could also just pay attention to the relatively little bit we come across during our relatively very short mortal lives and do the best we can do with that much.

[tonie]

Seriously, are you trying to suggest there is no liberal or conservative view when it comes to religion and scripture? No one has defined me. You have the exactly backwards.

 

Hamblin nor Peterson, has the right or responsibility to define what "liberal" or "conservative" when it comes to religion and scripture.  One mans conservative is another mans liberal. Their use of "conversative" and "liberal", I think, demostrates a lack of substance which then needed to appeal to emotionally charge baseless unfounded terminology.

 

As for "the divisiveness that seems to have been created here", considering that Hamblin has shown a willingness to demand others bear a "pre-recorded" testimony in order for the person to show their loyality, and that he has created what appears to be his standards for who can be considered a Saint...I would say the divisiveness is intended.

Edited January 14, 2015 by tonie

[Avatar4321]

I see no reason to create a liberal conservative split. Use the definition of scripture as given in d&c 68. Scripture is anything spoken by power of the Holy Ghost.

canonized scripture is the standard works as it's been sustained in conference as the body of the church

[Boanerges]

Disagree all we like. There's no need to think there is not differing views of what is scripture within the LDS community. And there's no need to argue the differing views are problematic necessarily.

 

 

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.

 

That said, I don't think I fall into either definition of liberal or conservative in referenced sources. I do belive the Bible to be the word of God (as far as it is translated correctly and I think ti's mostly translated correctly) and I also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. Though canonized, I'm not sure about all of the D&C (especially section 132) and I'm very doubtful of the Book of Abraham. I also don't believe most of what is said in General Conference is actual scripture (partly because it's not canonized), although I do beleive most of it is aligned with scripture. I am also open to the idea that the Quran might be scripture, as well as other "apocryphal" books. I am likewise open to some Buddhist and Hindu teachings, for example, being scripture. I'm sure that's clear as mud to most of you, as it is to me, but I would have to say I am neither conservative nor liberal under the above definitions but that I am probably closer to liberal.

[Buzzard]

Back when I was a young pup, this debate was framed as "Iron Rod" saints vs. "Liahona" saints, the terms coming from a Sacrament meeting talk given by someone I can't remember, but he did write it down.

[Bob Crockett]

I think that a sister in my ward is the person I've met who is most likely going to the Celestial Kingdom as any person I've ever met, next to my mother-in-law.  Both are immigrants with heavy accents.  The sister in the ward is always out doing good deeds for the poor and has for decades.

 

I wonder if she needs to have an exegetic experience with Greek and Hebrew to get the Celestial Kingdom?  Do I?   

Edited January 14, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[stemelbow]

No, we don't need to know that. We don't need to go in search of all that has been written as holy men were moved upon by the Holy Spirit to write. We could do that, if we wanted to, and it may do us some good if we do, but we could also just pay attention to the relatively little bit we come across during our relatively very short mortal lives and do the best we can do with that much.

I disagree, but I appreciate your view. I think there is plenty out there that is that which was created, written, or said as one was moved upon by the holy Ghost, but we have no idea that that's what it is. I'd also suggest there is perhaps some in that which we call canonical that was written without the Holy Ghost speaking or inspiring.

[stemelbow]

Hamblin nor Peterson, has the right or responsibility to define what "liberal" or "conservative" when it comes to religion and scripture.  One mans conservative is another mans liberal. Their use of "conversative" and "liberal", I think, demostrates a lack of substance which then needed to appeal to emotionally charge baseless unfounded terminology.

 

As for "the divisiveness that seems to have been created here", considering that Hamblin has shown a willingness to demand others bear a "pre-recorded" testimony in order for the person to show their loyality, and that he has created what appears to be his standards for who can be considered a Saint...I would say the divisiveness is intended.

I wish you would just flesh it out instead of just dogmatically state things and attack. I think if that were the case we'd be much further along.

But I do agree and something I should have included in the OP, many contribute to the divisiveness and not just those who are so opposed to the term and/or concept of apologist. But as your posts seem to demonstrate better than my OP and many other posts is there is a division...a division that is getting wider and more problematic.

[stemelbow]

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.

 

That said, I don't think I fall into either definition of liberal or conservative in referenced sources. I do belive the Bible to be the word of God (as far as it is translated correctly and I think ti's mostly translated correctly) and I also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. Though canonized, I'm not sure about all of the D&C (especially section 132) and I'm very doubtful of the Book of Abraham. I also don't believe most of what is said in General Conference is actual scripture (partly because it's not canonized), although I do beleive most of it is aligned with scripture. I am also open to the idea that the Quran might be scripture, as well as other "apocryphal" books. I am likewise open to some Buddhist and Hindu teachings, for example, being scripture. I'm sure that's clear as mud to most of you, as it is to me, but I would have to say I am neither conservative nor liberal under the above definitions but that I am probably closer to liberal.

You seem fairly liberal, based on what you've said. That doesn't mean you have to be defined by that, just that your views tend to be a little more towards the liberal side rather than the conservative side. Neither is a negative.

[Ahab]

Back when I was a young pup, this debate was framed as "Iron Rod" saints vs. "Liahona" saints, the terms coming from a Sacrament meeting talk given by someone I can't remember, but he did write it down.

So let's suppose the question now is: Is what he wrote scripture?

Under the definitions provided by our Lord and some of his prophets I'd say the answer is yes as long as what he wrote is what the Holy Spirit inspired him to write.

And the question is NOT: Do you believe that what he wrote is scripture? And the question also is NOT: Do you believe the Holy Spirit inspired him to write what he wrote? The question is: Did the Holy Spirit inspire him to write what he wrote.

[Uncle Dale]

Back when I was a young pup...

 

 

Which recalls to my mind the debates conducted at the

University Baptist Church (ABC), in Columbus, Ohio,

back in 1979 -- over the "inerrancy of scripture."

 

Their Conservatives were convinced that the 1611 KJV

had been produced with accompanying miracles, and

was the perfect "word of God" -- it "meant what it said"

and it "said exactly what it meant" -- in plain (?) English.

 

Their Liberals, on the other hand, wanted to study Hebrew

and Greek, so that they could consult ancient writings

preserved from the eras before King James took the throne.

 

While the "Conservatives" would never have agreed with

Parley P. Pratt, in concluding that many plain and precious

parts, of those texts ending up in the KJV, had been removed

or altered (by the Great and Abominable Church) they would

have been in perfect agreement with Apostle Pratt, in

condemning "Liberials" who might occasionally "spiritualize"

the revelations and commandments, believing that Holy Writ

need not always be taken literally.

 

Which seemed odd, to my way of thinking.

 

Aren't Conservatives supposed to be looking backwards, to

verify and preserve truth from the past? Even a pre-1611 past?

A past in which ancient Jewish writers sometimes communicated

in ways they obviously did not intend to be taken literally?

 

All to no avail in that Baptist congregation -- so I dutifully laid

out my $39.99 for a reprint of what the Church of England once

proclaimed was the truth -- no further speculation advisable.

 

UD

[Calm]

I agree with you. I would say, though, it seems pretty clear the movement that has been going for a while now. There is an effort to divide the scholarly world of Mormonism into apologist versus not apologist. Am I wrong?

No, you are not unfortunately.

What is strange is there are those refusing the apologist label on both ends of the spectrum and for the most part the ones who are okay with it are more in the middle in my experience. Apologist has become a derogatory label for a wide range of individuals.

[JLHPROF]

I like to go with Matthew 4:4 - But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

 

and to always take D&C 1:38 under consideration (although not as an absolute) - "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

 

Somewhere some of our members have gotten this evangelical like idea that if it's written in the 4 standard works it outranks the teachings of the prophets.  And they never see the irony that the standard works are just teachings of different prophets.  Ideally there should be no conflict between any prophetic teachings, but there is nothing in scripture that I can recall that says Mormon outranks Joseph Smith, or that Paul is more authoritative than Wilford Woodruff or that Ezekiel trumps Brother Brigham!

 

A prophet is a prophet.  Not sure why we think the ones in the standard works are 100% free from error and the ones who lived in our day are full of strange opinions.

 

Members seem to fall on the spectrum ---- at one end you have scriptural infallibility trumping everything and on the other you have the "follow the living prophet" even against scripture crowd.

Me, I like to dance around the middle somewhere and recognize both as being true and containing the occasional error.

[Ahab]

I like to go with Matthew 4:4 - But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

and to always take D&C 1:38 under consideration (although not as an absolute) - "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

Somewhere some of our members have gotten this evangelical like idea that if it's written in the 4 standard works it outranks the teachings of the prophets. And they never see the irony that the standard works are just teachings of different prophets. Ideally there should be no conflict between any prophetic teachings, but there is nothing in scripture that I can recall that says Mormon outranks Joseph Smith, or that Paul is more authoritative than Wilford Woodruff or that Ezekiel trumps Brother Brigham!

A prophet is a prophet. Not sure why we think the ones in the standard works are 100% free from error and the ones who lived in our day are full of strange opinions.

Members seem to fall on the spectrum ---- at one end you have scriptural infallibility trumping everything and on the other you have the "follow the living prophet" even against scripture crowd.

Me, I like to dance around the middle somewhere and recognize both as being true and containing the occasional error.

Which brings to mind what it means to be a living church/body of people of Jesus Christ.

Both conservatives and liberals and everything in between, as a heart beats from one extreme to the other. It would seem kinda weird if we already agreed with each other all of the time, wouldn't it? Opposition in all things, don't cha know.

[Robert F. Smith]

Back when I was a young pup, this debate was framed as "Iron Rod" saints vs. "Liahona" saints, the terms coming from a Sacrament meeting talk given by someone I can't remember, but he did write it down.

You are thinking of Professor Richard D. Poll, writing in Dialogue in 1967.

[Robert F. Smith]

........................................................................  

 

All to no avail in that Baptist congregation -- so I dutifully laid

out my $39.99 for a reprint of what the Church of England once

proclaimed was the truth -- no further speculation advisable.

 

UD

Are you talking about that Thomas Nelson reprint of the 1611 KJV, Brother Broadhurst?  You do realize that it is not really a reprint?  They completely reset the type.  The 1611 orthography is simply too hard for us to read 500 years later.

 

I guess a "conservative" would insist on the original orthography, while a "liberal" would reset the type..  Is that what those terms mean?

[Rivers]

I see more Hamblin than Peterson in the DN article.