Ahab Posted February 3, 2020 Posted February 3, 2020 13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Help me out here because I'm not following you. Are you saying that your answers to prayers can be independently verified through critical analysis? If so, how can this be accomplished and tested in a way that people can evaluate it? Yes, as evidenced by the fact that I'm not the only one who has the knowledge that I have. People have prayed to God and have received the same answers that I have. Not everybody but as far as I know that is because they did not do it right. God doesn't keep changing his mind or contradict himself so clearly it is those other people's fault that they don't believe what God has told me is true. 13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: What you explaining, clearly fits the definition of subjective knowledge. We all learn subjectively but the things we learn about are associated with objective reality. If we ever learn the truth about anything then whatever we learn is true because of it's objective reality. 13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: More accurate than less sophisticated historical analysis. Modern history, evaluation of sources, the tools used to evaluate, the critical thinking methods developed through years of scholarship has improved significantly in recent generations. Just like you see improvements in other disciplines of scholarship, we've seen significant improvement in how historical information is evaluated. As long as you arrive at the truth of what happened that is all that matters. If the way I found out something happened in the past is because God told me it happened that way then what I know is as true as it would be regardless of how I learned how it happened. If you'll give me a specific example I'll try to walk it through for you. Were Adam and Eve actually the ancestors of all people born on this planet, for example? With a special exception for Jesus Christ, whose Mother was a descendant of Adam and Eve but whose Father was the Father of our spirits? Send your scientists and historians out to dig up what they can find as the right answer, and if they arrive at the correct answer, then they will agree with what God has told me. God was there and God tells the truth so what he has told me about that is true regardless of whether or not other people agree with him.
mnn727 Posted February 3, 2020 Posted February 3, 2020 On 2/1/2020 at 9:24 PM, Duncan said: In Joseph Smith's 1838 account of the 1st Vision he doesn't identify God the Father and Jesus Christ , he just says "The Personages" or the Light, and the fact that one is clearly the father of the other one but it doesn't ever say who the personages are. Does anyone have thoughts as to why Joseph didn't identify who they were? When you retell a true happening do you retell it exactly the same every time. How many people in the Church in 1838 knew who "The Personages" were 100% would be my guess. 1
hope_for_things Posted February 3, 2020 Posted February 3, 2020 17 minutes ago, Ahab said: Yes, as evidenced by the fact that I'm not the only one who has the knowledge that I have. People have prayed to God and have received the same answers that I have. Not everybody but as far as I know that is because they did not do it right. God doesn't keep changing his mind or contradict himself so clearly it is those other people's fault that they don't believe what God has told me is true. You can't just claim to have received the same answer from God as someone else. How do you measure an answer to prayer to show that your answer is the same as someone else's answer? You have to be able to measure something, independent evaluation is not two separate people claiming the same thing. None of this fits the definition for measurable, independently verifiable, experiences that can be evaluated in a critical way. None of this fits the definition the term objective. Maybe putting this in context of something less close to home would help. If you came across two separate people who both claim to have been abducted by aliens. Lets say that they agree with each other about all the relevant points of their experiences. Can we test or measure these claims to see if there is something objective about their experiences we can evaluate. Maybe they have marks on their bodies, that could be tested and evaluated. Maybe we could test where they went missing and look for similar evidence at the scene of their abductions. But lets say neither of them have anything you can possible test or evaluate. No marks, no video, audio, eye witnesses, evidence at the scene, anything that can be measured and evaluated in any way. Do these experiences fit the definition of objective experience? 26 minutes ago, Ahab said: Quote What you explaining, clearly fits the definition of subjective knowledge. We all learn subjectively but the things we learn about are associated with objective reality. If we ever learn the truth about anything then whatever we learn is true because of it's objective reality. But the knowledge you have gained and the process with which you gained it, is still subjective if it can't be evaluated and tested. Like I said earlier, it doesn't mean what you experienced wasn't real. It just means that its not objective. 28 minutes ago, Ahab said: Quote More accurate than less sophisticated historical analysis. Modern history, evaluation of sources, the tools used to evaluate, the critical thinking methods developed through years of scholarship has improved significantly in recent generations. Just like you see improvements in other disciplines of scholarship, we've seen significant improvement in how historical information is evaluated. As long as you arrive at the truth of what happened that is all that matters. If the way I found out something happened in the past is because God told me it happened that way then what I know is as true as it would be regardless of how I learned how it happened. Your chances of arriving at the truth using old tools that aren't as sophisticated are much worse than using the modern tools that science and scholarship has given us. Unless you're an anti science guy, and then I can't help you. But if you believe in modern medicine, you should also believe in modern history. The tools of modern scholarship are vastly superior to old ways of doing things in this field. I would think that this kind of statement is pretty self evident so I'm not sure why I even have to make this point. Answers to prayers don't tell you facts about history. If they do, then please provide evidence to support that claim. Tell me some fact you learned about history that we can then evaluate to see how accurate it is. This should be a simple experiment really. God should be able to tell you a fact about another nation of this earth that you don't already know anything about. Then we can research the history of that nation and see if your fact lines up with reality. 34 minutes ago, Ahab said: If you'll give me a specific example I'll try to walk it through for you. Were Adam and Eve actually the ancestors of all people born on this planet, for example? With a special exception for Jesus Christ, whose Mother was a descendant of Adam and Eve but whose Father was the Father of our spirits? Send your scientists and historians out to dig up what they can find as the right answer, and if they arrive at the correct answer, then they will agree with what God has told me. God was there and God tells the truth so what he has told me about that is true regardless of whether or not other people agree with him. How could we possibly go about proving or disproving any of these theological claims? Besides, now that I'm reading your last couple sentences, I can see that you think you have knowledge from God that is irrefutable. Doesn't seem like your knowledge is open to any kind of critical evaluation. I wonder why you even posted the Youtube video in the first place, as nearly everything you've posted since then seems to contradict the basic points expressed in that video clip.
Ahab Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: You can't just claim to have received the same answer from God as someone else. How do you measure an answer to prayer to show that your answer is the same as someone else's answer? By whether or not we agree with each other. 16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: You have to be able to measure something, independent evaluation is not two separate people claiming the same thing. None of this fits the definition for measurable, independently verifiable, experiences that can be evaluated in a critical way. None of this fits the definition the term objective. It does if they actually experienced what they are saying they experienced and it is the same thing that I experienced. 16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Maybe putting this in context of something less close to home would help. If you came across two separate people who both claim to have been abducted by aliens. Lets say that they agree with each other about all the relevant points of their experiences. Can we test or measure these claims to see if there is something objective about their experiences we can evaluate. Maybe they have marks on their bodies, that could be tested and evaluated. Maybe we could test where they went missing and look for similar evidence at the scene of their abductions. But lets say neither of them have anything you can possible test or evaluate. No marks, no video, audio, eye witnesses, evidence at the scene, anything that can be measured and evaluated in any way. Do these experiences fit the definition of objective experience? If those experiences actually happened, yes. But would both bodies have marks on them? Not necessarily. Or would others be able to find evidence that they were taken? Not necessarily. Maybe the way they were taken was in some way that didn't leave any evidence behind, or they erased the evidence, or covered it up? Nothing at all to indicate to others that it happened, and yet if it actually happened, in objective reality, it really did happen even if there was no evidence that could be found to show that it happened. When God tells us things he doesn't leave any evidence behind to show that he has told us what he has told us. Only those who heard from him know that they did, and then only if they don't doubt it or deny that it happened. But he still communicated something, if he did, even if those he talked to would deny it or not believe it. 16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: But the knowledge you have gained and the process with which you gained it, is still subjective if it can't be evaluated and tested. Like I said earlier, it doesn't mean what you experienced wasn't real. It just means that its not objective. The only thing objective about it would be that it really happened, if it did. If it didn't actually happen then it wasn't actually a real experience, even if I were to believe it was real. 16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Doesn't seem like your knowledge is open to any kind of critical evaluation. I wonder why you even posted the Youtube video in the first place, as nearly everything you've posted since then seems to contradict the basic points expressed in that video clip. My knowledge is open to critical evaluation but that doesn't mean I'm going to deny what I experienced just because somebody who didn't experience it is critically evaluating what I say I experienced. Your evaluation does not override mine when you are denying that I experienced something that I experienced. The question is: Did it really happen or not? If it did then it was an objective reality regardless of your subjective opinion.
rpn Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 I think of it like this. All Joseph's life he'd been taught to understand God under the Nicene Creed. It probably took his some time to work his head around the fact that there were Three. Further they were clothed in glory and brightness, and I'm not sure I'd walk away from that with full comprehension/memory of the event either.
hope_for_things Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 54 minutes ago, Ahab said: 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: You can't just claim to have received the same answer from God as someone else. How do you measure an answer to prayer to show that your answer is the same as someone else's answer? By whether or not we agree with each other. 59 minutes ago, Ahab said: By whether or not we agree with each other. It does if they actually experienced what they are saying they experienced and it is the same thing that I experienced. If those experiences actually happened, yes. But would both bodies have marks on them? Not necessarily. Or would others be able to find evidence that they were taken? Not necessarily. Maybe the way they were taken was in some way that didn't leave any evidence behind, or they erased the evidence, or covered it up? Nothing at all to indicate to others that it happened, and yet if it actually happened, in objective reality, it really did happen even if there was no evidence that could be found to show that it happened. When God tells us things he doesn't leave any evidence behind to show that he has told us what he has told us. Only those who heard from him know that they did, and then only if they don't doubt it or deny that it happened. But he still communicated something, if he did, even if those he talked to would deny it or not believe it. The only thing objective about it would be that it really happened, if it did. If it didn't actually happen then it wasn't actually a real experience, even if I were to believe it was real. My knowledge is open to critical evaluation but that doesn't mean I'm going to deny what I experienced just because somebody who didn't experience it is critically evaluating what I say I experienced. Your evaluation does not override mine when you are denying that I experienced something that I experienced. The question is: Did it really happen or not? If it did then it was an objective reality regardless of your subjective opinion. Unfortunately, I don't think I'm getting through even though I've tried, but I don't want to side track this thread any further to try and explain the difference between subjective and objective claims. If interested, I found this article for reference. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/
10THAmendment Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 (edited) What bothers me the most is that the first account gives the impression of a traditional trinitarian view of the godhead. The reason that bothers me so much is because the original version of the Book of Mormon had a lot of trinitarian language in it. Of course the trinitarian verses were rewritten to show the Father and the Son as 2 different beings, probably around the same time he started saying 2 separate people appeared to him. Gives me a strong suspicion that Joseph’s view of God was evolving over time. Edited February 4, 2020 by 10THAmendment 1
InCognitus Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 3 hours ago, 10THAmendment said: What bothers me the most is that the first account gives the impression of a traditional trinitarian view of the godhead. The reason that bothers me so much is because the original version of the Book of Mormon had a lot of trinitarian language in it. Of course the trinitarian verses were rewritten to show the Father and the Son as 2 different beings, probably around the same time he started saying 2 separate people appeared to him. Gives me a strong suspicion that Joseph’s view of God was evolving over time. This idea that Joseph's view of the Godhead evolved is a popular claim made by critics, but the evidence just doesn't support it in my opinion. And to say his view was originally "trinitarian" is rather vague and meaningless, since true Trinitarians (in other Christian denominations) base their views on the same Bible verses that we use, but we come away with a different understanding than they do, primarily because of other teachings that are foundational to our faith. So a person could point to a verse here or a verse there in the Bible or Book of Mormon and claim it has a trinitarian slant, but when approached with a different framework for understanding it has a completely different meaning. Let me break down your statement above to show you what I mean about the evidence: Claim #1: The first account [of the first vision] gives the impression of a traditional trinitarian view of the godhead. The first account of the first vision was written in the summer of 1832. In that account Joseph says "I was filled with the Spirit of God and the <Lord> opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord". I don't know how you can say this statement is particularly trinitarian. It doesn't describe God as three persons in one divine substance, or anything like that. It's just a very simple statement about who Joseph said he saw and spoke to him. And if Joseph had a trinitiarian slant to his theology in the summer of 1832, he certainly didn't show it earlier that same year when he recorded the following vision on February 16, 1832, now known to us as Section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants: Quote 11 We, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Sidney Rigdon, being in the Spirit on the sixteenth day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two—.... (skipping to verse 19). the Lord touched the eyes of our understandings and they were opened, and the glory of the Lord shone round about. 20 And we beheld the glory of the Son, on the right hand of the Father, and received of his fulness; 21 And saw the holy angels, and them who are sanctified before his throne, worshiping God, and the Lamb, who worship him forever and ever. 22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives! 23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father— 24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God. (Doctrine and Covenants 76:11, 19–24) Does this vision sound Trinitarian to you? The wording of this vision sounds very much like the 1838 first vision account. And this vision preceded the writing of the 1832 account of the first vision by at least four months. If Joseph's view of God was evolving, it was evolving in the opposite direction than the way you think (and then back again). Claim #2: The original version of the Book of Mormon had a lot of trinitarian language in it, and verses were rewritten to show the Father and the Son as two different beings. I can think of only four possible changes in the Book of Mormon text between the 1830 edition to the 1837 edition that might fit what you may be thinking (1 Nephi 11:18, 1 Nephi 11:21, 1 Nephi 11:32 and 1 Nephi 13:40), but I may have forgotten some. These (and two others) are really the only changes that some notable critics have found to be "significant", so I'm pretty sure I have this right. Please tell me if you had something else in mind. But if it is only these four, then this is really not "a lot of" verses that were rewritten. In each one of those four verses there was an insertion of only three words ("the Son of") to eliminate ambiguity. It is easily demonstrated that this is a clarification and not a shift in theology, because the idea that Jesus is Divine and is "God", even the "Eternal Father" (as in Isaiah 9:6 also quoted in 2 Nephi 19:6, or Ether 4:7), or the "Everlasting God" is clearly taught elsewhere in the Book of Mormon where there is no ambiguity on which person in the Godhead is being discussed, and no changes were made in the text. Even the title page of the Book of Mormon states that one of the purposes of the Book of Mormon is "to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations". Furthermore, there are some significant verses that could be read in a trinitarian way that remain unchanged (but are totally consistent with Latter-day Saint theology), such as: "And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen." (2 Nephi 31:21, see also Mosiah 15:4, Mormon 7:7) And whether these, or any verses, are trinitarian (or not) is arguable. Trinitarians teach the divinity of Jesus Christ, and Latter-day Saints teach the divinity of Jesus Christ. Trinitarians teach that the three persons of the Trinity are "one", and Latter-day Saints teach that the three persons of the Godhead are "one": We just disagree on how exactly they are "one". So there is really no evolution of theology regarding the Godhead going on here, and the language of the 1838 account of the first vision isn't that different than the February 1832 vision recorded in Section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants, which preceded the 1832 first vision account. 3
InCognitus Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 On 2/2/2020 at 8:29 PM, Tacenda said: On 2/2/2020 at 4:58 PM, InCognitus said: More accounts are always better. I like that we have the Wentworth Letter account of the visit of the angel Moroni to Joseph, for example, because it includes additional details about things that Joseph was shown concerning the people in the Book of Mormon. Were you part of the below? I heard the same thing come out of the mouth of church historians being interviewed on the latest Mormon Land podcast. Maybe Duncan will get answers if he takes a listen to these podcasts put out by those in charge of the Joseph Smith's Paper Project podcast on the FV. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/the-first-vision-a-joseph-smith-papers-podcast I wasn't part of that, no, nor would they have any reason to include me (I'm just a hobbyist historian if you could even call me that). But isn't the idea that "more accounts are always better" just common sense? 1
Kevin Christensen Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 (edited) 10 hours ago, 10THAmendment said: What bothers me the most is that the first account gives the impression of a traditional trinitarian view of the godhead. The reason that bothers me so much is because the original version of the Book of Mormon had a lot of trinitarian language in it. Of course the trinitarian verses were rewritten to show the Father and the Son as 2 different beings, probably around the same time he started saying 2 separate people appeared to him. Gives me a strong suspicion that Joseph’s view of God was evolving over time. Take a look at this from Brant Gardner: https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2003/monotheism-messiah-and-mormons-book As well as this from Margaret Barker: https://www.theway.org.uk/back/431Barker.pdf And that should lead you to reading the most important treatment of the topic, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God: The Great Angel, 1992 In The Great Angel. A Study of Israel’s Second God (London: SPCK, 1992) she tested the hypothesis that when the early Christians read the Old Testament as an account of the pre-incarnate Christ, they were reading in a traditional way and were not innovators. She proposed that pre-Christian Judaism was not monotheistic in the generally accepted sense of that word. From a comparison of ancient versions of the OT she proposed that Israel had known a High God and a second, national God, known as the Son of God Most High. Since crucial textual variants arose relatively late, as can be seen from the Qumran evidence, the second God remained a living issue during the second temple period. The hypothesis was tested in Philo, early rabbininc texts (building on the work of A Segal Two Powers in Heaven Leiden: Brill, 1978, but reaching very different conclusions), in Gnostic texts and, with unexpected success, in the Christian writings of the first three centuries. Finally she tested the hypothesis in the New Testament where the results convinced her that this was the key to understanding Christian origins. She concluded that when the Christians declared ‘Jesus is the Lord’ they were affirming that Jesus was the final manifestation of Yahweh, the national God of Israel in the Old Testament. Thus the origins of Trinitarian belief are pre-Christian, and the heir to temple tradition is Christianity. The sensitive nature of these results made further study imperative, but nothing she has discovered since has in any way altered these conclusions. The Lord of the Old Testament as the Lord of the New Testament was fundamental to all her subsequent work. This book caught the attention of Mormon scholars [Latter Day Saints] who now take a great interest in Margaret Barker's work. My reading of The Great Angel in 1999 radically changed my reading of the Book of Mormon. Those who are aware that in ancient Israel, Yahweh was seen as the son of God Most High, El Elyon, will see a significance to passages like 1 Nephi 11:6, "Blessed art thou Nephi, because thou believest in the son of God Most High", a passage that I have never once seen mentioned or discussed by those who argue that the Book of Mormon was originally trinitarian. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited February 4, 2020 by Kevin Christensen 3
hope_for_things Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 10 hours ago, 10THAmendment said: What bothers me the most is that the first account gives the impression of a traditional trinitarian view of the godhead. The reason that bothers me so much is because the original version of the Book of Mormon had a lot of trinitarian language in it. Of course the trinitarian verses were rewritten to show the Father and the Son as 2 different beings, probably around the same time he started saying 2 separate people appeared to him. Gives me a strong suspicion that Joseph’s view of God was evolving over time. Joseph's view of God was evolving over time, as were all of Joseph's other views. This is human nature we're talking about, people are always evolving and changing. You recognize of course that this conflicts with some elements of Mormon tradition and scriptural passages which define God as unchanging. I think its an opportunity to be invited into questions about God, what elements are changable and what are unchanging. Of course there aren't any clear answers to these questions, but the questions are the important part to be engaged with. I also think it is healthy to emphasize the other part of Mormon tradition that talks about line upon line learning, and situational type ethics, that things are true in their sphere, but not necessarily in other situations. Yes, Joseph's concepts changed over time, we should expect that, and we should expect continued changes in the future. The restoration is on going, but its also never complete. The goal is to get better and more enlightened as we go. Progress is what we want to see.
Ahab Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 10 hours ago, 10THAmendment said: What bothers me the most is that the first account gives the impression of a traditional trinitarian view of the godhead. The reason that bothers me so much is because the original version of the Book of Mormon had a lot of trinitarian language in it. Of course the trinitarian verses were rewritten to show the Father and the Son as 2 different beings, probably around the same time he started saying 2 separate people appeared to him. Gives me a strong suspicion that Joseph’s view of God was evolving over time. I believe there is a lot of truth to the traditional trinitarian view of the godhead. It just doesn't go far enough to explain how those 3 persons are the same kind of being. A kind of being that we could be one with, too, as our Lord prayed for when he prayed to our Father in heaven.
InCognitus Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 9 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Joseph's view of God was evolving over time, as were all of Joseph's other views. This is human nature we're talking about, people are always evolving and changing. Our understanding of God changes as we learn more about him. And there's no question that Joseph also learned more about God as time went on. But there's a big difference between this true principle and the accusation that Joseph's theology was obviously evolving from trinitarian to something else based on cherry picking of sources over a period of time. Those kinds of claims can be tested, and generally they are riddled with the same kind of interpretation problems that people have with the Bible. For example the focus on a single "God" in the book of Moses account of creation as compared to the "Gods" in the book of Abraham account is no more an indication of a shift in theology as is the "I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me" of Isaiah 45:5 compared to the "God is God of gods" proclamation of Deuteronomy 10:17. All of these statements have a particular point of view and context that makes it difficult to demonstrate a specific lack of understanding at one point in time as compared to another. 9 hours ago, hope_for_things said: You recognize of course that this conflicts with some elements of Mormon tradition and scriptural passages which define God as unchanging. I think its an opportunity to be invited into questions about God, what elements are changable and what are unchanging. Of course there aren't any clear answers to these questions, but the questions are the important part to be engaged with. You bring up an important question which is made even more interesting and informative by starting with Hebrews 13:8: "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." How exactly is Jesus "the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever", when he was in the beginning with God (John 1:1-3), was "made flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14), was born of a woman and "grew, and waxed strong in the spirit" (Luke 2:40), and "increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man" (Luke 2:52), and suffered death on the cross, was resurrected and "learned.. obedience" and was "made perfect" (Heb 5:8-9), and was "highly exalted" of the Father (Philippians 2:9)? I don't think there is any contradiction between any of these verses and the teaching that Jesus is "the same" forever, we just need to consider how it is that he is "the same" always: His teachings and principles are rock solid, and they are eternal principles. 1
2BizE Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 I think the 1838 account was formatted in a way to better reflect the verbiage of other miraculous visions by other contemporaries. There were several people who described visions in a very similar way.
hope_for_things Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 12 hours ago, InCognitus said: Our understanding of God changes as we learn more about him. And there's no question that Joseph also learned more about God as time went on. But there's a big difference between this true principle and the accusation that Joseph's theology was obviously evolving from trinitarian to something else based on cherry picking of sources over a period of time. Those kinds of claims can be tested, and generally they are riddled with the same kind of interpretation problems that people have with the Bible. For example the focus on a single "God" in the book of Moses account of creation as compared to the "Gods" in the book of Abraham account is no more an indication of a shift in theology as is the "I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me" of Isaiah 45:5 compared to the "God is God of gods" proclamation of Deuteronomy 10:17. All of these statements have a particular point of view and context that makes it difficult to demonstrate a specific lack of understanding at one point in time as compared to another. The evidence looks clear to me and comes from multiple points of data which is evidence for its strength. You can look at Joseph's teachings about God in the BoM, the early D&C revelations, Moses, the lectures on faith portion of the D&C, these all reflect different concepts than what developed in later Nauvoo. And like I said, this is not only to be expected because its human nature, but the evidence also shows and has been commented on by multiple scholars that Joseph's theology is not systematically consistent. Assumptions for systematic consistency are what I see as affected by the fallacies of cherry picking and presentism. I would recommend Charles Harrell's very fine book This is My Doctrine which explores these changes over time for many of the key theological concepts in Mormon thought. 13 hours ago, InCognitus said: You bring up an important question which is made even more interesting and informative by starting with Hebrews 13:8: "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." How exactly is Jesus "the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever", when he was in the beginning with God (John 1:1-3), was "made flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14), was born of a woman and "grew, and waxed strong in the spirit" (Luke 2:40), and "increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man" (Luke 2:52), and suffered death on the cross, was resurrected and "learned.. obedience" and was "made perfect" (Heb 5:8-9), and was "highly exalted" of the Father (Philippians 2:9)? I don't think there is any contradiction between any of these verses and the teaching that Jesus is "the same" forever, we just need to consider how it is that he is "the same" always: His teachings and principles are rock solid, and they are eternal principles. Good comments and I like that you're thinking about these things. One thing I've learned as I've studied the NT as well is that you can see a clear evolution of thought in the Gospels and throughout the timeline of the NT writers. I would recommend two books on this topic. Marcus Borg's Evolution of the Word, and Bart Ehrman's Jesus before the Gospels.
InCognitus Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 12 hours ago, hope_for_things said: The evidence looks clear to me and comes from multiple points of data which is evidence for its strength. You can look at Joseph's teachings about God in the BoM, the early D&C revelations, Moses, the lectures on faith portion of the D&C, these all reflect different concepts than what developed in later Nauvoo. This is exactly what I thought would be the approach, and this is where I find it to be highly problematic. If we assume that Joseph wrote and made up the Book of Mormon, and that he made up the D&C revelations, and made up the book of Moses, then we can try to make it seem like Joseph’s theology changed by cherry picking verses to support that point of view. But if we are honestly looking for a full sweep of teachings within each of those texts, we can also find enough variety to destroy that whole theory. But what if Joseph isn’t the actual author and he didn’t make up any of those things? What if the Book of Mormon really is ancient scripture like the Bible, written by different authors over a long period of time? And the book of Moses, what if it is really what it professes to be? And what if the D&C revelations really came from God? If we start with those premises and test them accordingly, we will find that those texts aren’t all that different from the Bible, and the Bible evidently contains enough variety on theology to support a wide range of interpretations. I read the preface to the Charles Harrell book you recommended on Amazon’s website using the “Look Inside!” feature, and it includes the following: Quote More discriminating LDS students of the scriptures frequently see variation in the doctrinal teachings of the scriptures and find that different prophetic authors had different theological perspectives. According to Barlow, these Saints are able to “give broad leeway to the human element in both ancient and contemporary scriptures.” They have come to believe, as many biblical scholars have long asserted that scripture is human-conditioned and that therefore doctrinal paradigms may vary from author to author. Biblical scholarship affirms that, far from presenting a single unified theology, the Bible contains a kaleidoscope of doctrines reflecting multiple theological perspectives. Felix Just, professor of theology at the University of San Francisco, writes: “Deuteronomistic Theology is very different from Biblical Apocalyptic, and the theology of the Books of Kings contrasts sharply with that of the Prophet Jeremiah. The same is true within the New Testament: there are significant differences between Pauline and Johannine theologies, the theology of the Letter to the Hebrews differs from that of the Book of Revelation, and so forth.” Blake Ostler similarly observes that “While the fundamentalist speaks of the biblical view of God or the biblical concept of justification, the more informed person speaks of biblical concepts [plural] of God, or the concepts of justification, and views of humanity.” Scholars see doctrinal change going back to the earliest Old Testament writings. As described by Catholic Bible scholar Gerald O’Collins, “Old Testament religious themes often remained fluid and not very sharply defined. Over the centuries, in response to new circumstances, key themes could be interpreted, reinterpreted, emphasized and marginalized.” (This is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology, Charles R. Harrell, page 5, emphasis added) Everything I quoted above is making exactly the same point I am trying to make: Real scripture is going to include a variety of points of view and doctrinal perspectives. And if we treat the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and book of Moses like real scripture instead of something that came out of Joseph Smith’s mind, we'll find that they hold up exactly the same way as the Bible does, and we will find a wide variety of doctrinal points of view and concepts [plural] of God, which would be the "more informed" view (as Blake Ostler put it). And if we really want to understand how Joseph’s view of God changed over time, we would want to consider how Joseph was personally influenced by his visions, or how he was influenced by teachings he encountered in the Book of Mormon, and how learning of those things for the first time shaped his view of God. The real place to understand those views would be from his personal writings, and not from within the text of the Book of Mormon, book of Moses, or the D&C. And we wouldn't want to rely too heavily on The Lectures on Faith to form opinions on Joseph's views, because the authorship of The Lectures on Faith is hotly disputed. Noel Reynolds may be on the right track in identifying Sidney Rigdon as the author (see: LDS Perspectives Podcast Episode 44: Mystery Solved: Who Wrote the Lectures on Faith, transcript here) And thanks for the recommendation about Harrell's book, it looks interesting. 1
hope_for_things Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 9 hours ago, InCognitus said: This is exactly what I thought would be the approach, and this is where I find it to be highly problematic. If we assume that Joseph wrote and made up the Book of Mormon, and that he made up the D&C revelations, and made up the book of Moses, then we can try to make it seem like Joseph’s theology changed by cherry picking verses to support that point of view. But if we are honestly looking for a full sweep of teachings within each of those texts, we can also find enough variety to destroy that whole theory. But what if Joseph isn’t the actual author and he didn’t make up any of those things? What if the Book of Mormon really is ancient scripture like the Bible, written by different authors over a long period of time? And the book of Moses, what if it is really what it professes to be? And what if the D&C revelations really came from God? If we start with those premises and test them accordingly, we will find that those texts aren’t all that different from the Bible, and the Bible evidently contains enough variety on theology to support a wide range of interpretations. It strikes me as odd to state the obvious as highly problematic. The natural attribution of authorship is to assume Joseph who produced all of these works also had also had some level of influence on all those productions. Its not cherry picking verses to support the idea that Joseph's theology changed over time, its evaluating the evidence from multiple sources to show that his ideas about God were clearly changing. Conversely, there is literally no supporting evidence that can show a Modern Mormon conception of the Godhead back on these earlier productions. You can't find it in the BoM, you can't find it in the early D&C revelations, you can't find it anywhere. 11 hours ago, InCognitus said: Everything I quoted above is making exactly the same point I am trying to make: Real scripture is going to include a variety of points of view and doctrinal perspectives. And if we treat the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and book of Moses like real scripture instead of something that came out of Joseph Smith’s mind, we'll find that they hold up exactly the same way as the Bible does, and we will find a wide variety of doctrinal points of view and concepts [plural] of God, which would be the "more informed" view (as Blake Ostler put it). And if we really want to understand how Joseph’s view of God changed over time, we would want to consider how Joseph was personally influenced by his visions, or how he was influenced by teachings he encountered in the Book of Mormon, and how learning of those things for the first time shaped his view of God. The real place to understand those views would be from his personal writings, and not from within the text of the Book of Mormon, book of Moses, or the D&C. And we wouldn't want to rely too heavily on The Lectures on Faith to form opinions on Joseph's views, because the authorship of The Lectures on Faith is hotly disputed. Noel Reynolds may be on the right track in identifying Sidney Rigdon as the author (see: LDS Perspectives Podcast Episode 44: Mystery Solved: Who Wrote the Lectures on Faith, transcript here) Thanks, its a very interesting read, but also a great reference book. I agree that real scripture will include a variety of points of view and doctrinal perspectives, but I'm confused about how you're interpreting that idea. The second half of your post sounds like you and I align quite well in thinking that scripture provides multiple perspectives that we shouldn't expect to harmonize, but the first part of your post seems to contradict these points. Perhaps you can help me understand where the disconnect is. As for personal writings, we know that Joseph didn't have very many personal writings. He wasn't much of a writer as he liked to use scribes and dictate things and oversee the production of many different works, all of which have been canonized in Mormon scripture. If you are going to dismiss the Lectures on Faith because Sidney Rigdon was a primary contributor, we should also dismiss Joseph Smith's History in the PoGP as that was written by different authors as well.
InCognitus Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 (edited) On 2/6/2020 at 9:10 AM, hope_for_things said: It strikes me as odd to state the obvious as highly problematic. The natural attribution of authorship is to assume Joseph who produced all of these works also had also had some level of influence on all those productions. I’d be interested to see you show any similarity of linguistic style or word patterns in the Book of Mormon text that demonstrate Joseph Smith to be the author. I view Joseph as the translator of the Book of Mormon text, and even if it could be proved that his language style shows through in the translation (I don’t think it does), then it still wouldn’t mean that the ideas about God that are translated in the text would be his ideas. Of course a translator’s views might be expressed in an ordinary translation, but the Book of Mormon isn’t an ordinary translation. And I know you have been aware of the studies done on the obsolete Early Modern English language of the Book of Mormon, suggesting that the translation doesn’t seem to have come from Joseph Smith’s language at all. The book of Moses is a revealed text and therefore it may have nothing to do with Joseph’s own ideas. Some of the sections of the Doctrine and Covenants contain Joseph’s own thoughts (such as Section 121), but the revelations are a different matter. Given that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient text that was written by different authors we should expect different doctrinal viewpoints to be expressed in the book by the various authors, just like we do with the Bible. This is why I find it problematic to blame these different viewpoints on Joseph’s “changing views” about God, when the book itself shows a variety of views expressed by the prophets who wrote the book. One example of this is the usage of Isaiah quotations in the Book of Mormon. Toward the beginning of the book the prophet Nephi quotes Isaiah to bring our attention to the Abrahamic covenant and the dispersal of Israel, then the prophet Abinadi comes along in Mosiah 14-15 and reads Isaiah in a way that focuses on Christ, and in doing so he quotes Isaiah 52:8-10 in application to the salvation that comes through Christ, and then Jesus comes along later in 3 Nephi and quotes Isaiah 52:8-10 on two different occasions, but both in application to the gathering of Israel: Once in 3 Nephi 16:18-20 applying the verses to the people of the Book of Mormon receiving “this land” as the land of their inheritance, and later in 3 Nephi 20:34-35 to talk about Israel receiving Jerusalem as the land of their inheritance, with a slight wording variation that has to do with doctrine about the Godhead. So we have Nephi’s viewpoint, Abinadi’s viewpoint, and Jesus’ viewpoint. They are different views, and those views may be entirely different from Joseph’s own views at the time. If these earlier revelations are really depicting Joseph’s own theology rather than a revealed theology, then what do you make of the inclusion of the quotes from Malachi 4:5-6 in 3 Nephi 25:5-6, which is also a passage that Joseph said was quoted to him by Moroni in September 1823, and was later published in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants in section 50 of that edition (section 27 in our current edition)? The fulfillment of that prophecy occurred on April 3, 1836, when Elijah returned and committed the keys of his dispensation as promised by Malachi, initiating the work for redeeming the dead. That verse appears multiple times in our scriptures (Old and New Testament), including the Book of Mormon as it came to exist in 1829. Do you think Joseph had work for the dead in mind as part of his theology all the way back to the beginning? Or if this was something he developed later on, why did he prepare the way for it by including it in his earliest revelations? On 2/6/2020 at 9:10 AM, hope_for_things said: Its not cherry picking verses to support the idea that Joseph's theology changed over time, its evaluating the evidence from multiple sources to show that his ideas about God were clearly changing. It is cherry picking if, for example, we focus on Abinadi’s teaching about how Jesus is both the Father and the Son without exploring other verses in the Book of Mormon that explain how it is that Jesus is called the “Father”. If we look at Ammon appealing to King Lamoni’s belief in the “Great Spirit”, we should also look to see that Lamoni also considered the possibility that Ammon himself was the “Great Spirit”, or even the viewpoint of the brother of Jared in the book of Ether who saw Jesus Christ, and was told by him that it was “the body of my spirit” that he was seeing and he explained, “man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh” (Ether 3:16). We need to evaluate every relevant passage. Are these all “Joseph’s views” on the Godhead, or the views of Abinadi, Ammon, Lamoni, and the brother of Jared? And are they really portraying a different view of God than what you think Joseph Smith believed later in his life? On 2/6/2020 at 9:10 AM, hope_for_things said: Conversely, there is literally no supporting evidence that can show a Modern Mormon conception of the Godhead back on these earlier productions. You can't find it in the BoM, you can't find it in the early D&C revelations, you can't find it anywhere. What exactly is the “Modern Mormon conception of the Godhead” that you can’t find in the early references? What specifically do you think is missing? On 2/6/2020 at 9:10 AM, hope_for_things said: Thanks, its a very interesting read, but also a great reference book. I agree that real scripture will include a variety of points of view and doctrinal perspectives, but I'm confused about how you're interpreting that idea. The second half of your post sounds like you and I align quite well in thinking that scripture provides multiple perspectives that we shouldn't expect to harmonize, but the first part of your post seems to contradict these points. Perhaps you can help me understand where the disconnect is. Don’t confuse different perspectives on doctrine with different doctrines that contradict one another. I’m sure you are familiar with the parable/story/poem of the blind men and the elephant. As in this famous story, different perspectives on their own may appear to be contradictory, but often times they are just pieces of a bigger picture. And the different perspectives can be in total harmony with each other when the big picture is understood. A perfect illustration of this in scripture comes from the way that Jesus, and later the apostles, viewed or reinterpreted passages in the Hebrew Scriptures. When we view the writings of the Old Testament through the lens of the New, a totally different perspective emerges that is not out of harmony with any of the teachings of the Hebrew text. But it is a new and different perspective, one that accounts for more pieces of the puzzle. Different prophets can offer different perspectives on doctrines that are completely in harmony with other perspectives making up the big picture. And with regard to Joseph Smith’s revelations and historical accounts, I don’t find anything in the Book of Mormon, book of Moses, or early Doctrine and Covenants revelations or first vision accounts that are out of harmony with later revelations or first vision accounts. But different doctrinal perspectives may be offered as new information is revealed. On 2/6/2020 at 9:10 AM, hope_for_things said: As for personal writings, we know that Joseph didn't have very many personal writings. He wasn't much of a writer as he liked to use scribes and dictate things and oversee the production of many different works, all of which have been canonized in Mormon scripture. If you are going to dismiss the Lectures on Faith because Sidney Rigdon was a primary contributor, we should also dismiss Joseph Smith's History in the PoGP as that was written by different authors as well. Noel Reynolds’ position is that Sidney Rigdon is the sole author of the Lectures on Faith, and that Joseph had nothing to do with it at all, and he provides historical and word study evidence to back his position. Joseph and Sidney Rigdon were not even in the same part of the country when the Lectures were written and compiled for publication. Obviously there were multiple contributors to some of the publications (such as the Joseph Smith history), but if we are going to attribute a particular theological view to Joseph Smith, we better make sure that Joseph had some part in the process. Edited February 10, 2020 by InCognitus 2
hope_for_things Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 16 hours ago, InCognitus said: I’d be interested to see you show any similarity of linguistic style or word patterns in the Book of Mormon text that demonstrate Joseph Smith to be the author. I view Joseph as the translator of the Book of Mormon text, and even if it could be proved that his language style shows through in the translation (I don’t think it does), then it still wouldn’t mean that the ideas about God that are translated in the text would be his ideas. Of course a translator’s views might be expressed in an ordinary translation, but the Book of Mormon isn’t an ordinary translation. And I know you have been aware of the studies done on the obsolete Early Modern English language of the Book of Mormon, suggesting that the translation doesn’t seem to have come from Joseph Smith’s language at all. The book of Moses is a revealed text and therefore it may have nothing to do with Joseph’s own ideas. Some of the sections of the Doctrine and Covenants contain Joseph’s own thoughts (such as Section 121), but the revelations are a different matter. Given that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient text that was written by different authors we should expect different doctrinal viewpoints to be expressed in the book by the various authors, just like we do with the Bible. This is why I find it problematic to blame these different viewpoints on Joseph’s “changing views” about God, when the book itself shows a variety of views expressed by the prophets who wrote the book. One example of this is the usage of Isaiah quotations in the Book of Mormon. Toward the beginning of the book the prophet Nephi quotes Isaiah to bring our attention to the Abrahamic covenant and the dispersal of Israel, then the prophet Abinadi comes along in Mosiah 14-15 and reads Isaiah in a way that focuses on Christ, and in doing so he quotes Isaiah 52:8-10 in application to the salvation that comes through Christ, and then Jesus comes along later in 3 Nephi and quotes Isaiah 52:8-10 on two different occasions, but both in application to the gathering of Israel: Once in 3 Nephi 16:18-20 applying the verses to the people of the Book of Mormon receiving “this land” as the land of their inheritance, and later in 3 Nephi 20:34-35 to talk about Israel receiving Jerusalem as the land of their inheritance, with a slight wording variation that has to do with doctrine about the Godhead. So we have Nephi’s viewpoint, Abinadi’s viewpoint, and Jesus’ viewpoint. They are different views, and those views may be entirely different from Joseph’s own views at the time. If these earlier revelations are really depicting Joseph’s own theology rather than a revealed theology, then what do you make of the inclusion of the quotes from Malachi 4:5-6 in 3 Nephi 25:5-6, which is also a passage that Joseph said was quoted to him by Moroni in September 1823, and was later published in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants in section 50 of that edition (section 27 in our current edition)? The fulfillment of that prophecy occurred on April 3, 1836, when Elijah returned and committed the keys of his dispensation as promised by Malachi, initiating the work for redeeming the dead. That verse appears multiple times in our scriptures (Old and New Testament), including the Book of Mormon as it came to exist in 1829. Do you think Joseph had work for the dead in mind as part of his theology all the way back to the beginning? Or if this was something he developed later on, why did he prepare the way for it by including it in his earliest revelations? The starting point assumption that Joseph is the author of the different works that he dictated needs to be the foundation that any further analysis is built upon. The preponderance of close and credible historical evidence supports the idea that the text was produced by Joseph. Just because many many of them were viewing this through a supernatural lens, doesn’t change this fact that there really isn’t compelling evidence from sources close to Joseph that point to someone else being the author. That should be the baseline upon which all additional study of the texts is built. After that point, you have a multitude of different theories that try put forward claims that the content of the text couldn't have purely come from Joseph's mind but instead must have been influenced by his borrowing from other sources. Whether through a translation of another text (that is the dominant traditional explanation) or Joseph being influenced directly by deity (thoughts coming into his mind) or some combination of the two explanations. The burden of proof lies squarely on the proponents of these theories to prove their validity using scholarly evidence. If you want to look at this from a religious/faith perspective, that is a different matter altogether. So, when you talk about word studies to support Joseph as the author, I think you’ve got it backwards. You need to find word studies that can conclusively rule out Joseph as being the author, and this evidence needs to be extremely compelling, because all the witness statements and strength of the historical record support that Joseph produced these texts. This is partly why the Spalding theory doesn’t pass muster by critical scholars on all sides of the insider/outsider spectrum. So, for the claim that Joseph couldn’t have produced the text by himself, we’d need to see clear and compelling evidence to refute that claim, and I haven’t been convinced by any of the apologetic theories to try and prove this. I think its overwhelmingly clear that the text is influenced by 19th century ideas, specifically concepts that were a part of Joseph’s milieu, and that Joseph was produced the texts. 16 hours ago, InCognitus said: It is cherry picking if, for example, we focus on Abinadi’s teaching about how Jesus is both the Father and the Son without exploring other verses in the Book of Mormon that explain how it is that Jesus is called the “Father”. If we look at Ammon appealing to King Lamoni’s belief in the “Great Spirit”, we should also look to see that Lamoni also considered the possibility that Ammon himself was the “Great Spirit”, or even the viewpoint of the brother of Jared in the book of Ether who saw Jesus Christ, and was told by him that it was “the body of my spirit” that he was seeing and he explained, “man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh” (Ether 3:16). We need to evaluate every relevant passage. Are these all “Joseph’s views” on the Godhead, or the views of Abinadi, Ammon, Lamoni, and the brother of Jared? And are they really portraying a different view of God than what you think Joseph Smith believed later in his life? I see the BoM concepts for God as compatible with broader Christian broader Christian concepts, many scholars see these ideas influenced by modalistic and trinitarian concepts about God. We don’t see any of the later Nauvoo ideas in Joseph’s early years. This is partly why in the early 20th century church leaders like James Talmage fell a need to set forth a new direction on God, and why the Lectures on Faith were decanonized and the early 20th century statements about the Godhead were made to try and set a standard definition of God that the church could move forward with. I believe there have been results about the effectiveness of these efforts. In addition to the book by Dr. Harrell that I recommended earlier, I think John Turner’s recently written The Mormon Jesus is a nice book on this topic as well. https://www.amazon.com/Mormon-Jesus-Biography-John-Turner/dp/0674737431/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1WTL83JIQ6JAV&keywords=the+mormon+jesus&qid=1581354382&s=books&sprefix=the+mormon+jesus%2Cstripbooks%2C183&sr=1-1 16 hours ago, InCognitus said: On 2/6/2020 at 9:10 AM, hope_for_things said: Conversely, there is literally no supporting evidence that can show a Modern Mormon conception of the Godhead back on these earlier productions. You can't find it in the BoM, you can't find it in the early D&C revelations, you can't find it anywhere. What exactly is the “Modern Mormon conception of the Godhead” that you can’t find in the early references? What specifically do you think is missing? https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/godhead?lang=eng Quote But where Latter-day Saints differ from other Christian religions is in their belief that God and Jesus Christ are glorified, physical beings and that each member of the Godhead is a separate being. The true doctrine of the Godhead was lost in the apostasy that followed the Savior’s mortal ministry and the deaths of His Apostles. This doctrine began to be restored when 14-year-old Joseph Smith received his First Vision (see Joseph Smith—History 1:17). From the Prophet’s account of the First Vision and from his other teachings, we know that the members of the Godhead are three separate beings. The Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bones, and the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit (see Doctrine and Covenants 130:22). The idea of God the Father as a physical being distinctly separate from Jesus is an idea that you I haven't seen support for in early Mormon writings or scripture. I'm thinking anything before the Nauvoo period. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm open to looking at it. I think you'll find any physical descriptions for God prior to Nauvoo were quite compatible with other Christian views about the physicality of Jesus and don't reflect the differentiation talked about on the church's website. 16 hours ago, InCognitus said: Don’t confuse different perspectives on doctrine with different doctrines that contradict one another. I’m sure you are familiar with the parable/story/poem of the blind men and the elephant. As in this famous story, different perspectives on their own may appear to be contradictory, but often times they are just pieces of a bigger picture. And the different perspectives can be in total harmony with each other when the big picture is understood. A perfect illustration of this in scripture comes from the way that Jesus, and later the apostles, viewed or reinterpreted passages in the Hebrew Scriptures. When we view the writings of the Old Testament through the lens of the New, a totally different perspective emerges that is not out of harmony with any of the teachings of the Hebrew text. But it is a new and different perspective, one that accounts for more pieces of the puzzle. Different prophets can offer different perspectives on doctrines that are completely in harmony with other perspectives making up the big picture. And with regard to Joseph Smith’s revelations and historical accounts, I don’t find anything in the Book of Mormon, book of Moses, or early Doctrine and Covenants revelations or first vision accounts that are out of harmony with later revelations or first vision accounts. But different doctrinal perspectives may be offered as new information is revealed. I don't see a substantial difference between different perspectives and contradictory doctrines, to me they are the same thing. The trunk of the elephant is substantially different than the tail. They are not only part of the larger picture and valid perspectives, but they show that that your position in relationship to the elephant (circumstances and setting) change the reality that you experience. They also show that a tail and a trunk are made of different substances for different purposes. These perspectives are contradictory, depending how you want to view it. A trunk is not a tail. I would also say that not all perspectives will be accurate. The person describing the trunk might have poor description abilities, or worse, might be intentionally trying to deceive. The motivations of all the different authors will be different and to the extent that certain authors are motivated in self serving ways you’ll have perspectives that clearly don’t reflect a the divinity that many people will find inspirational. If you're not able to see that contradictions are reflected in scripture, or my other example that I put forward "The Internet", then I think that says you're not critically reviewing the materials. 17 hours ago, InCognitus said: Noel Reynolds’ position is that Sidney Rigdon is the sole author of the Lectures on Faith, and that Joseph had nothing to do with it at all, and he provides historical and word study evidence to back his position. Joseph and Sidney Rigdon were not even in the same part of the country when the Lectures were written and compiled for publication. Obviously there were multiple contributors to some of the publications (such as the Joseph Smith history), but if we are going to attribute a particular theological view to Joseph Smith, we better make sure that Joseph had some part in the process. Can you link to Noel Reynolds' work? I'm familiar with some evidence that Joseph wasn't the primary author for certain Lectures, but my understanding was that they think Joseph likely authored one of the Lectures, and perhaps even W.W. Phelps was involved as well. Also, as to your comment that we need to make sure that Joseph had some part in the process. Are you suggesting that a book that was canonized under the supervision of Joseph during his lifetime, didn't have his explicit approval? Does Noel Reynolds put forward a paradigm that Joseph clearly didn't have anything to do with the LoF so we should dismiss them as inspired works because Rigdon was somehow going rogue and these products didn't have Joseph's sanction?
Hamba Tuhan Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, hope_for_things said: The starting point assumption that Joseph is the author of the different works that he dictated needs to be the foundation that any further analysis is built upon. Determine the premise, predetermine the conclusion. Edited February 10, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan 1
hope_for_things Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Determine the premise, predetermine the conclusion. Every examination starts with assumptions and well documented scholarship typically discloses up front what the starting point assumptions are for clarity purposes. Lets take this outside the discussion of Joseph Smith and religion in general so as to attempt to remove any in-group bias. Now if we're going to critically examine texts for authorship, outside of the BoM or other religious texts, can you give me a situation where researchers should make a starting assumption that the author wasn't the person that historical evidence points to? Or perhaps look at works of art or works music. When should our starting assumption run counter to the historical evidence and why? Edited February 10, 2020 by hope_for_things
Hamba Tuhan Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 (edited) 31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Can you give me a situation where researchers should make a starting assumption that the author wasn't the person that historical evidence points to? Perhaps when the person you personally want/need to be the author consistently and repeatedly claims not to have been? By the way, you may want to clarify what you actually mean by 'historical evidence', but it appears to me that you're using the phrase to mean, roughly, 'we all know angels don't deliver books to men'. Because one simply can't assume that authorship is known and then critically examine a text to determine authorship. That exercise would necessarily demand accepting the premise that the authorship may not be known. And evidence simply doesn't have any meaning outside of an interpretive framework, and therefore premises do not arise from the evidence. You've got the entire academic enterprise entirely front-to-back. Edited February 10, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan 1
hope_for_things Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 37 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Perhaps when the person you personally want/need to be the author consistently and repeatedly claims not to have been? By the way, you may want to clarify what you actually mean by 'historical evidence', but it appears to me that you're using the phrase to mean, roughly, 'we all know angels don't deliver books to men'. Because one simply can't assume that authorship is known and then critically examine a text to determine authorship. That exercise would necessarily demand accepting the premise that the authorship may not be known. And evidence simply doesn't have any meaning outside of an interpretive framework, and therefore premises do not arise from the evidence. You've got the entire academic enterprise entirely front-to-back. I'm talking about scholarly research, not faith claims. You can't prove through empirical evidence that angels exist. Faith claims are fine within their territory, but you can't critically evaluate them using the tools of scholarship. Angels, last time I checked, don't leave any empirical evidence for critical analysis. Can you think of any examples, outside of religion, where an author is claiming that they produced something, but that it didn't come from them, that it came from another source other than them? As for the premises, the starting point that I mentioned earlier is based on historical evidence. In Joseph's case, he's never claiming that he didn't author these works. Quite the contrary, he's claiming that he produced them through the gift and power of God. Not that God produced them independently of Joseph. Study it out in your mind kind of approach. Its only some people that go further to claim that Joseph had nothing to do with the products he authored. All evidence points to the contrary.
Recommended Posts