MormonMason Posted April 30, 2018 Posted April 30, 2018 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: This letter borrows heavily from an earlier published statement in 1834 that Cowdery penned, and it just doesn't seem important to have been elevated to its current level of emphasis in Mormonism. You could pick and choose any number of things that were published in Joseph's lifetime and elevate them to scriptural status, but I would argue that we should be more selective and careful about what we elevate to that status in the Mormon tradition. Unfortunately, there isn't a sophisticated understanding of how our scriptures evolved into being, so most modern Mormons have unsubstantiated assumptions that everything is the way it is because it was God breathed. In this way we are very similar to fundamentalist Christians and their naive views about the Bible. So debating the value of something like the Articles of Faith, becomes a difficult prospect when many people entering the debate are just seeking to defend the status quo, rather than actually evaluating something. Whether or not Oliver Cowdery penned something similar at an earlier time is irrelevant. The version we can use today essentially is what was penned by Joseph Smith and published by by himself in Church periodicals. He felt it important enough to share with the Church as a statement of basic beliefs. Many people asked questions about basic beliefs and he wrote it to cover those. It served such a useful purpose that it was included in the Pearl of Great Price, which eventually would become canonized as scripture. It was evaluated as having great value and usefulness. Similarly, the Documentary Hypothesis was discussed and debated at around the time of B. H. Roberts and afterwards. Most leaders of the Church rejected it. One in particular published against it and similar ideas. The Church pushed back against attacks on the Book of Abraham, too. The Articles of Faith still serve a useful purpose today in articulating the basic beliefs of the Church. Entire books have been written around them. They aren't going away anytime soon and I just don't see why we should have to reconsider them or believe outside hypotheses concerning the origins of parts of the Bible that still have little support or evidence for their assumptions other than that they have been accepted and repeated in scholarly literature as though Gospel, without serious reconsideration of the underlying assumptions.
MormonMason Posted April 30, 2018 Posted April 30, 2018 19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Everything I've read by mainstream biblical scholars, including Mormons who are informed on the subject, is that the DH as a whole is well established as consensus. Where are you getting these opinions from? Oh it's considered concensus alright. That is because it is repeated often enough and practically required to be accepted in order to be taken seriously in the educational establishment. I've looked into it. I don't agree with much of it because of all the special pleading and unproven assumptions. Honestly, I've seen others say that the Theory of Evolution has more hard scientific evidence than does the Documentary Hypothesis. I'm inclined to agree with that. I'm also inclined to lean towards the views of R. K. Harrison on the subject. You should read his Introduction to the Old Testament to see the other side of the coin.
hope_for_things Posted April 30, 2018 Posted April 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, MormonMason said: It was evaluated as having great value and usefulness. This "evaluation" was subjective and I don't think it was wise considering the history as well as the values that Joseph espoused about creeds and his distaste for them. As well as the core Mormon theological ideal of continuing and evolving revelation. Having specific ideas that frozen in time, is antithetical to these principles. 6 minutes ago, MormonMason said: Similarly, the Documentary Hypothesis was discussed and debated at around the time of B. H. Roberts and afterwards. Most leaders of the Church rejected it. Can you support your statement that "most leaders of the Church rejected it". I haven't seen any evidence to support that. My casual observation is that most leaders of the church are ignorant to the merits of the DH and by being ignorant they aren't aware of the evidence and they aren't able to properly evaluate it. I'm also not aware of any official church positions on this subject. You're implying that a lack of understanding about this subject = endorsement by the church and its leaders of a particular stance on the issue. I don't agree. 10 minutes ago, MormonMason said: The Articles of Faith still serve a useful purpose today in articulating the basic beliefs of the Church. Entire books have been written around them. They aren't going away anytime soon and I just don't see why we should have to reconsider them or believe outside hypotheses concerning the origins of parts of the Bible that still have little support or evidence for their assumptions other than that they have been accepted and repeated in scholarly literature as though Gospel, without serious reconsideration of the underlying assumptions. You're making assumptions that I don't see any support for from my perspective. Can the AoF be useful today, yes. But could reconsidering them also be useful, of course. These two things aren't mutually exclusive. Does the DH conflict with the church's official teachings or statements about scripture? I don't think so. I would even argue the statement about the bible in the AoF is quite liberal and allows for us to look at the bible differently than our biblical inerrantist Christian friends. Also on the DH and biblical scholarship in general, you are painting with a very broad brush when you dismiss an entire discipline as just regurgitating past ideas without any critical examination of assumptions. Your evaluation of this discipline couldn't be further from the truth and shows either your lack of examination or an implicit bias on your part. A quick search of FAIR Mormon resulted in this article about the DH. So even conservative apologists have found ways of appreciating and reconciling elements of this biblical scholarship that you reject. Quote Question: LDS teachings and scripture clearly imply that Moses learned of the Creation and the Fall in vision and was told to write what he saw. However, most modern scholars find evidence that the book of Genesis as we have it today was produced at a much later date than Moses could have lived. Can these views be reconciled? Summary: Scholars have assembled impressive evidence that the first five books of the Bible were compiled in their current form at a relatively late date from multiple, overlapping sources of varying perspectives — and almost certainly with differing degrees of inspiration. This idea should not trouble believing readers of the Book of Mormon, who know that inspired editors wove separate, overlapping records covering many hundreds of years into a single work of scripture. In addition, the idea that Moses may not have written all that is attributed to him firsthand is not incompatible with the belief that he, along with other major Old Testament figures, were actual historical persons. Many of the Bible’s sources may go back to authentic traditions (whether oral or written) that are associated with figures such as Moses as authorities, even if they were not the direct authors. As a further witness of the reality of these figures, we have accounts of the Prophet having seen many of them personally. Moreover, we have the same witness within the Joseph Smith’s Bible translation efforts, the Book of Mormon, the book of Abraham, and several revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. We are fortunate both to know that these lengthy additions to the record of the Old Testament are authentic reports of events originally experienced by ancient prophets and that they were also directly translated in our day by a modern prophet. https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/tag/documentary-hypothesis
hope_for_things Posted April 30, 2018 Posted April 30, 2018 16 minutes ago, MormonMason said: Oh it's considered concensus alright. That is because it is repeated often enough and practically required to be accepted in order to be taken seriously in the educational establishment. I've looked into it. I don't agree with much of it because of all the special pleading and unproven assumptions. Honestly, I've seen others say that the Theory of Evolution has more hard scientific evidence than does the Documentary Hypothesis. I'm inclined to agree with that. I'm also inclined to lean towards the views of R. K. Harrison on the subject. You should read his Introduction to the Old Testament to see the other side of the coin. Please tell me you're not comparing the DH to biological evolution and asserting that evolution is another unproven theory. They teach evolution in BYU Biology 101 courses today. I would recommend you take a look at David Bokovoy's Authoring the Old Testament, its a good introduction and addresses relevant mainstream scholarship on the issue. I read a lot and I may check out Harrison's book, even if he does critique the DH in it. I'm no expert on this topic, so I try to follow the mainstream.
MormonMason Posted April 30, 2018 Posted April 30, 2018 7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: This "evaluation" was subjective and I don't think it was wise considering the history as well as the values that Joseph espoused about creeds and his distaste for them. As well as the core Mormon theological ideal of continuing and evolving revelation. Having specific ideas that frozen in time, is antithetical to these principles. Can you support your statement that "most leaders of the Church rejected it". I haven't seen any evidence to support that. My casual observation is that most leaders of the church are ignorant to the merits of the DH and by being ignorant they aren't aware of the evidence and they aren't able to properly evaluate it. I'm also not aware of any official church positions on this subject. You're implying that a lack of understanding about this subject = endorsement by the church and its leaders of a particular stance on the issue. I don't agree. You're making assumptions that I don't see any support for from my perspective. Can the AoF be useful today, yes. But could reconsidering them also be useful, of course. These two things aren't mutually exclusive. Does the DH conflict with the church's official teachings or statements about scripture? I don't think so. I would even argue the statement about the bible in the AoF is quite liberal and allows for us to look at the bible differently than our biblical inerrantist Christian friends. Also on the DH and biblical scholarship in general, you are painting with a very broad brush when you dismiss an entire discipline as just regurgitating past ideas without any critical examination of assumptions. Your evaluation of this discipline couldn't be further from the truth and shows either your lack of examination or an implicit bias on your part. A quick search of FAIR Mormon resulted in this article about the DH. So even conservative apologists have found ways of appreciating and reconciling elements of this biblical scholarship that you reject. https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/tag/documentary-hypothesis So? It's still a hypothesis. It still has even less supporting scientific evidence than the Theory of Evolution. That is one difference between hypothesis and theory. Even after more than a century it still hasn't moved from hypothesis to Theory. It doesn't matter to me that others find it useful, or that people adapt to it or adopt it uncritically. I don't tend to adhere to groupthink. Again, consult Harrison as a starting point. Whether you come to accept Harrison's view or not is up to you but you can't ignore Harrison and his sources and be informed in full on the subject.
MormonMason Posted April 30, 2018 Posted April 30, 2018 (edited) 17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Please tell me you're not comparing the DH to biological evolution and asserting that evolution is another unproven theory. They teach evolution in BYU Biology 101 courses today. I would recommend you take a look at David Bokovoy's Authoring the Old Testament, its a good introduction and addresses relevant mainstream scholarship on the issue. I read a lot and I may check out Harrison's book, even if he does critique the DH in it. I'm no expert on this topic, so I try to follow the mainstream. You misunderstand. I'm quite serious when I state that the Theory of Evolution has more scientific evidence than does the Documentary Hypothesis. It does. I'm not discounting the Theory of Evolution at all. I may take a look at Bokovoy one of these days. But one cannot ignore Harrison. Harrison's Introduction covers more than 1200 pages, more than 690 of them discussing the Documentary Hypothesis and related material. He presents a summary of all sides of the equation and lists sources for further consideration in addition. Edited April 30, 2018 by MormonMason
hope_for_things Posted April 30, 2018 Posted April 30, 2018 49 minutes ago, MormonMason said: So? It's still a hypothesis. It still has even less supporting scientific evidence than the Theory of Evolution. That is one difference between hypothesis and theory. Even after more than a century it still hasn't moved from hypothesis to Theory. It doesn't matter to me that others find it useful, or that people adapt to it or adopt it uncritically. I don't tend to adhere to groupthink. Again, consult Harrison as a starting point. Whether you come to accept Harrison's view or not is up to you but you can't ignore Harrison and his sources and be informed in full on the subject. Ha! You think there is some group out there that moves ideas from hypothesis to theory? Oh boy.... I imagine you follow mainstream scholarship when it comes to your health or finances or physics. Groupthink can happen, but going against the group can be very risky, and it shouldn't be practiced as a general rule of thumb.
hope_for_things Posted April 30, 2018 Posted April 30, 2018 50 minutes ago, MormonMason said: You misunderstand. I'm quite serious when I state that the Theory of Evolution has more scientific evidence than does the Documentary Hypothesis. It does. I'm not discounting the Theory of Evolution at all. I may take a look at Bokovoy one of these days. But one cannot ignore Harrison. Harrison's Introduction covers more than 1200 pages, more than 690 of them discussing the Documentary Hypothesis and related material. He presents a summary of all sides of the equation and lists sources for further consideration in addition. When it comes to Harrison, or anyone else outside the mainstream of scholarship, they have the burden of proving why their departure from the mainstream is justified. I'd be more interested in how his peers have responded to his ideas, than in the length of his work. If you think Harrison is correct, but you haven't examined the mainstream scholarship to counter check those ideas, then you're going about this backwards. You should get familiar with all the arguments of the mainstream first, and then engage with the person challenging the approach. Often those challenging the mainstream setup strawman arguments. I haven't read Harrison, so I have no idea if that's how he approaches this topic, but I've seen it many times on many other topics so I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
Recommended Posts