The December 2013 issue of the Mormon Church’s Ensign magazine contains an article by John Welch titled, “The Articles of Faith and the Life of Joseph Smith.” In this article, Dr. Welch goes through the 13 Articles of Faith (canonized in the Mormon scripture The Pearl of Great Price) to help readers see Joseph Smith’s life “in a meaningful framework.” By considering the historical events that accompanied the founding of Mormonism, today’s Mormons can better understand “some key doctrines of the restored gospel” as outlined by Joseph Smith in these Articles. To that end, Dr. Welch invites his readers to “consider some ways in which the Articles of Faith and the life of Joseph Smith are aligned.”
The Articles of Faith were first published in 1842, in the Mormon periodical Times and Seasons. They were taken from a letter that Joseph Smith had written in the spring of that year to John Wentworth, the editor of the Chicago Democrat
. Nine years later, in 1851, these same Articles of Faith were included in The Pearl of Great Price, a collection of Joseph Smith’s writings that were not yet canonized. The Pearl of Great Price became a standard work (scripture) of the Mormon Church in 1880, making the Articles of Faith official doctrine of the Church from that time onward (Church History in the Fulness of Times, Religion 341-343, 257).
The Articles of Faith today are mostly unchanged from when Joseph Smith affirmed them in his letter to John Wentworth, but a significant change was made to Article 4 sometime between the 1888 and 1928 editions of The Pearl of Great Price.
Articles 3 and 4 as originally written by Joseph Smith, canonized as scripture, and declared “official doctrine” by the Mormon Church read as follows:
“We believe that, through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
“We believe that these ordinances are: First, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; Second, Repentance; Third, Baptism by immerssion for the remission of sins; Fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (The Pearl of Great Price, 1888, 121)
Joseph Smith’s declaration was that the salvation of mankind (on man’s part) was achieved by obedience to laws and four distinct ordinances of the gospel — specifically defined as faith, repentance, baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Article of Faith 4 was changed in later years. Now the dual Articles read (additions in bold for clarity):
“We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
“We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Articles of Faith 3-4, The Pearl of Great Price)
Therefore, the doctrinal declaration in the 4th Article of Faith was changed. It no longer states that mankind may be saved by obedience to four specific ordinances of the gospel. Now mankind may be saved, it indicates, by obedience to an unspecified set of ordinances, with just the first of these being the four ordinances that previously comprised the whole requirement.
Marion Romney, then a member of the First Presidency speaking at General Conference in 1974, defined what the word “saved” means in the 3rd Article of Faith:
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affirms as its Third Article of Faith…
“In these remarks I shall set forth some views of the church of Jesus Christ on this subject.
“Saved as here used means resurrected and returned as a sanctified, celestialized, immortal soul to the presence and society of God, there to pursue an endless course of eternal progress.” (“How Men Are Saved,” General Conference, October 1974)
When Joseph Smith first wrote the Articles of Faith in the spring of 1842, temple ordinances (endowments, eternal marriages, sealings) were not fully developed doctrines of the Church – they were not yet required for salvation. But that changed.
“…the ordinance of [temple] sealing is an absolute, and that without it there can be no salvation in the eternal world, no eternal life.” (Spencer W. Kimball, “The Ordinances of the Gospel,” cited in Achieving a Celestial Marriage, 204)
“The temple blessings are as essential for each of us as our baptism. For this reason, we are to prepare ourselves that we may be clean to enter into the temple of God” (Robert D. Hales, “Temples are essential to eternal plan of happiness,” Church News, November 19, 2005, 5).
“Temple ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world are for the salvation and exaltation of God’s children. It is important that the saving ordinances not be altered or changed, because all of those who will be exalted, from the first man, Adam, to the last, must be saved on the same principles.” (Royden G. Derrick, Temples in the Last Days, 36)
“We must do more than just say we believe in Jesus Christ; we must follow him. All people, regardless of their level of righteousness, will be saved from death because of the Resurrection of Christ. However, in order to attain the highest degree of glory in the resurrection, we need to ‘come unto Christ, and be perfected in him’ (Moroni 10:32). We come unto Christ by having faith in him, repenting of our sins, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, receiving other saving priesthood ordinances, obeying the commandments, and keeping the covenants we make with our Heavenly Father.” (Preparing for Exaltation Teacher’s Manual, 39)
“The Lord Himself has revealed what is essential for the salvation and exaltation of His children. One of these essentials is that temples are to be erected for the performance of ordinances that cannot be performed in any other place… All of these priesthood temple ordinances [i.e., baptism for the dead, endowments, celestial marriages and sealings] are essential for the salvation and exaltation of our Father in Heaven’s children.” (Howard W. Hunter, “A Temple-Motivated People,” Ensign, March 2004)
“All of our efforts in proclaiming the gospel, perfecting the Saints, and redeeming the dead lead to the holy temple. This is because the temple ordinances are absolutely crucial; we cannot return to God’s presence without them.” (Ibid.)
In 1842 Joseph Smith taught there were four ordinances required for the salvation of mankind; today the Mormon Church says these four ordinances are just the beginning.
It’s too bad that Dr. Welch’s December 2013 Ensign article reflected the modern version of the Articles of Faith rather than the Articles as Joseph Smith wrote them. Dr. Welch missed an opportunity to further enrich his theme of “[bringing] to light the main stages in Joseph Smith’s prophetic mission and inspired life” by neglecting the way in which today’s 4th Article of Faith and the life of Joseph Smith are historically unaligned.
—
For more information on the topic of salvation:
Introduction to Salvation at mrm.org
“Salvation” links page at mrm.org
One Door to Salvation by Charles Spurgeon
johnnyboy,
Thank you for linking to that article. I think we should acknowledge the LDS church and its attempts to “rebrand” their institution. 19th century Mormonism, it appears, just doesn’t make the grade in 21st century America. These people don’t even want to own “Kolob” any more. This reinvented Mormonism is just another phase of the slow roll out strategy of the LDS church. At least the FLDS sticks to their guns about these things that the LDS finds embarrassing and impossible to defend.
Here are some excerpts from the article that I find fascinating. I especially like the one about the Amish and their buggies. What’s that about? I live near where there are a lot of Amish who drive buggies. It’s a fact. I’ve seen it. It’s not folklore or a misconception about the Amish. They ride in buggies pulled by horses. What a stupid analogy.
From the article:
Past articles have addressed the faith’s past ban on black men in the lay clergy and the early history of polygamy.
The series of postings have been applauded by religious scholars who say the church is finally acknowledging some of the most controversial or sensitive parts of its history and doctrine that it once sidestepped.
‘The church has become fully aware that scholarship and history is a double edge sword,’ said Terryl Givens, professor of literature and religion and the James Bostwick Chair of English at the University of Richmond. ‘They can work in the church’s favor, but they can also be unsettling.’
People commonly latch on to the most outrageous or unique aspects of religions, such as Amish people using horse and buggy, and that’s how the perception of Mormons inheriting their own planets became widespread, Givens said.
‘Many of these things can be unsettling to members who have grown up with a typically manicured narrative, but it’s a necessary part of the maturation for the church membership,’ Givens said.
The intent of the articles is to give Mormons and non-Mormons definitive places to go to study or learn about doctrinal issues.
End of excerpts.
Don’t you just love that last line I posted. “……..definitive places to go to study or learn about doctrinal issues.” You mean they are finally going to nail all of this stuff down. I doubt it!
@grindael & falcon
I’m making both your points. I’m basing sons of perdition on what is in the scripture and what the modern church interprets that scripture to be. The 19th century ramblings of old joe and Brigham don’t concern me! That’s just folklore doncha know?
I still contend that one must have the heavens opened and have a “perfect knowledge” of Jesus. This is reiterated by many church apostles as “having your calling and election made sure” ie second anointing. This was personally confirmed to me by Richard Scott while I was in the MTC. This is why Tom Phillips was devastated when he learned that Jesus DOES NOT appear at the second anointing! This was the big and final deal but where was JESUS?? He was then instructed to basically lie and infer that he did see Jesus and knew he existed “without faith”. This is the catchphrase they use to convince the sheep that they talk with Jesus face to face. The second anointing club are pretty much the only ones who can commit the unpardonable sin, but the problem is of Jesus never appears, so how would they be sinning? Hence why I claim Phillips is not a son of perdition and cannot be sent to outer darkness. How the Holy Ghost fits into all of this is murky as he is used as the “conduit” for all this to work. But who knows since the lds definition of the Holy Ghost and the power of the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit is COMPLETELY convoluted. The church now teaches that the Holy Ghost doesn’t dwell within us, but he’s like the sun and we just feel his “happy rays”.
I think many in Joseph’s inner circle had this anointing. Since most of these leaders left and denied Joseph, he obviously used outer darkness as a scare tactic against them and to keep others from leaving. He intentionally made it vague. What if I (assuming I’ve denied the Holy Ghost) leave and DONT fight against the church and or it’s leaders? Would I still qualify as a son of perdition? It seems one would have to openly fight against the church according to what joe and Brigham say. Would Oliver Cowdery be considered a son of perdition? He never technically made it back before he died but he was on his way back.
Again, this is the problem with the murkiness of lds “doctrine”. It devolves into whatever people want it to mean. I use this as my catchphrase for all arguments on the Internet:
“I’m right, you’re wrong. Welcome to the Internet.” 😉
Hey Guys,
A few years ago I read an amazing book called Christianity’s Dangerous Idea by Alister McGrath. It’s not a Christian book per sae but more in the realm of history/anthropology.
The message I took home from it is that the Bible acts as kind of a universal acid that eventually if given enough exposure will wear down ideas that are contrary to what it teaches. It works much faster when you affirm something like Sola Scriptura but it works regardless as long as you hold that the Bible is the word of God.
Organizations that consider the Bible to be scripture will become more “biblical” or will eventually cease to exist if they are in a pluralistic society. The only way to thwart this inevitable process is to isolate yourself from other perspectives.
The LDS was able to do this for a long time due to geography alone. With the advent of the internet and modern mobility that ship has sailed. The only question will be if the organization has the flexibility to change before the unavoidable collapse.
Interesting times indeed
peace
@fifth
I think it was somewhere on this blog or maybe another that someone made the point that the followers of Brigham were technically in the minority. The rest of the Mormons split off into other factions but were in the majority.
The ONLY reason Brighams church survived was because of isolation in utah.
@old man
I agree that the articles don’t scrutinize the church as well as they should. But that’s mainly because a lot of these articles are written by people who don’t have a clue about what Mormonism truly teaches. So in order for them to really understand the significance and scrutinize it, they would have to study endless Mormon garbage.
Most people just don’t have the time or care enough to bother. We leave that job to our friends on here who do understand the ridiculousness of it all and who really have concern over how Mormonism affects people.
johnnyboy,
What you are doing is mixing up the second anointing with qualifications for the sons of perdition. The two are not the same, as per Jo Smith and Brigham Young. The Second Anointing is simply a sealing ceremony. There is no “perfect knowledge” involved in either one. David John Buerger,
Now, when Jo taught about the Second Anointing/Comforter, he put in all kinds of grand things (This is 27 June, 1839, mind you):
The Second Comforter and the Second Anointing (Sealing) are two different things. But BOTH achieve the same end, although if one only has Christ appear to them and PROMISE, it is of no force in the next world WITHOUT THE SEALING. Jo said in 1844 that no one can become a Son of Perdition until they receive the Holy Ghost, but the Second Comforter is Jesus. Therefore, one does not have to have their Calling & Election made sure to become a Son of Perdition. That is why Jo said, “What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin they must receive the Holy Ghost have the heavens opened unto them, & know God, & then sin against him, this is the case with many apostates in this Church”. Jo didn’t say, one must receive the Second Comforter, or the Second Anointing. In 1832 Jo wrote,
Joseph F. Smith said,
Nowhere does Smith mention “perfect knowledge”. Only rebellion against the Priesthood and the “Holy Ghost”. A year later, B.H. Roberts taught,
After the turn of the century, many were still teaching that the Sons of Perdition would not be resurrected (as per Brigham Young) and so there was a dedicated campaign to stamp it out. They began saying that “only a few” would become Sons of Perdition. By 1922, Charles Penrose (The inventor of the Adam God THEORY explanation) took this approach:
You see what happened here. This was to be the new direction for Modern Mormonism. What does it matter to us? Do your duty … don’t “pretend” to know any more than your “brethren”… (which is actually nothing). These Modern-day “prophets” and “apostles” then began a systematic shutting down of all inquiries into what they classed as “the mysteries”. Why? Because they saw what happened when Jo and Brigham went there. It gave rise to too many questions that THEY COULD NEVER ANSWER. Jo said “knowledge saves”, but not in Modern Mormonism. Knowledge is the enemy. You must be a good worker bee and follow the “brethren” of the Corporation now. Oh they will still bring up the Sons of Perdition, to scare the little worker bees.
More quotes:
Richard Scott doesn’t know what he is talking about.
RikkiJ,
Good question. I can see the need for clarification.
By “saved,” I mean salvation in the sense applied in the article above. It is salvation from sin. It is eternal life, and living with Heavenly Father in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. But it also applies to any degree of salvation from sin and any reward received after this life.
MJP- sure. I can see how a person could interpret any changes or expansion of doctrine as the result of making it up creatively over time. Of course that is a possible interpretation. If a person believes Joseph Smith was a false prophet, that is almost the only conclusions. But in my opinion, that is also an incorrect conclusion.
It is a little ironic, though, that anybody who believes in the Bible would insist on such an interpretation of doctrinal development over time. Almost all modern scholarship supports the conclusion that the theology of the Pentateuch evolved over time. The very clear evidence of contradictory opinions and theologies from different ancient theological camps is still there throughout the books of Genesis through Deuteronomy (and throughout much of the OT).
And this is only one of the many reasons that modern Biblical scholarship really poses no problem for our faith and religion- in fact, it supports our understanding, in many ways, of how revelations are given and how those revelations effect “God’s people.” It has never been as “black and white” as many modern folks believe.
As to the resurrection- I really think you need to look at the passage in 1 Corinthians 15. It very clearly states that all men will be resurrected, just like all men die. But men will be resurrected according to their “order.” I understand that you don’t believe that. But I don’t think the text could be more clear here. Why refer to Adam and the universal effect of death at all when describing the resurrection? Yes, it was Adam who partook of the fruit and caused death. But it is the universality of death that Paul is very clearly comparing the resurrection to. Make sense?
The quote by Howard Hunter which Sharon cited is interesting . He said that all the efforts of
Mormons in proclaiming the gospel leads to the temple . That struck me as a good example of
the vast difference between the Mormon gospel and the true authentic one preached by Jesus’
original apostles , because the true gospel leads people to a person —Jesus Christ , not a temple
with secret rituals .
Why can’t Mormon leaders make up their minds about essential ordinances ? Mormon leaders
have exhibited a pattern of confusion about what they have introduced as gospel laws and
ordinances . In Church News the quote by Mormon leader Robert D. Hales where he said
” The temple blessings are as essential for each of us as our baptism .”
That is exactly what Mormon apostle Joseph F. Smith said about the “restored ” ordinance
of polygamy , it was as essential as baptism . There were other sealing ordinances whose
practice is no longer deemed appropriate . A behavior of being unstable and inconsistent in
declaring gospel doctrine is just what Mormon leaders accused all the other churches of
especially in Joseph Smith’s and Brigham Young’s day . Mormon apostle George Cannon
reminded everyone that Mormons had the remedy for the ” man made theories of salvation”
which all other church offered . [ Gospel Truth , p 297 ] .
This behavior by Mormon leaders of altering one of their Articles of Faith sometime between
1888 and 1928 is something we would expect by prophets in the latter days who have introduced
a works base system of gaining salvation . There’s never enough to do to qualify for salvation —
another rule or ordinance necessary as a step to climb up the restored ” gospel ladder” to
reach God’s home and gain eternal life with Him . They simply add another rung to this ladder .
Rather than trusting the man made theory of what is required for salvation which Mormon
leaders have introduced , it is safer to stick with the original gospel of salvation . That gospel
was powerful to save in Paul’s day and still is today . It’s author has given eternal life to those
who have listened to it and come to Him personally and asked for forgiveness .
The latter days prophets of Mormonism have only given their followers a unstable teaching
track record of gospel preaching . They’ve mixed in their own ideas to the gospel Paul taught
and introduced ordinances not from God . Their ” restored” gospel is only the product of
their own minds , evidenced by a pattern of inconsistency—one of very things why they
advised everyone not to accept the gospel preaching of other churches .
May the Mormon people return to the true undiluted gospel of salvation . Jesus gave that to
His apostles long ago and it still is efficient today . Heaping man made ordinances on it only
alters it , something most latter days prophets can’t seem to refrain from .
@grindael
Just playing devils advocate, if modern apostles are wrong regarding sons of perdition, when and where did this teaching change course?
I was taught my whole life that only those that had certain knowledge of christ (via d&c 76) could become sons of perdition. So somewhere along the way this doctrine has been “murkified”. I’m not arguing against what joe or brigham or woodruff or joe f smith have proclaimed… I was stating that this HAS been changed which is evident since other sources (like mormonwiki) proclaim what I was taught. The verse in D&C is specific by stating “certain knowledge” regarding this. And most regard this to mean what I have stated.
I think the church has tempered the language and meaning on this topic and will continue to since they will never openly state to TBM parents that their “wayward children” are sons of perdition. I don’t think that would go over so well since now so many people are leaving. Uchtdorfs “doubt your doubts” talk is a perfect example of this abandonment
Johnny,
It would help if you had some quotes to support your contention. Can you post them?
Unfortunately this argument doesn’t work, because the Documentary HYPOTHESIS is just that, a hypothesis that right now, is very much in contention, even among scholars that support it. There is no “clear evidence” to support speculation. That is because there is no manuscript evidence. Cases have been made for both sides of this argument, and nothing has been PROVEN at all, it is all speculation at this point. So trying to use this to support an argument is non sequitur. Here is a good article that describes what is going on with the Documentary Hypothesis, and how it has been evolving and devolving over time, (but not abandoned) and how the details of what is what are still very much in contention.
As this article points out,
There is no irony here, only wishful thinking.
Hey FOF,
you said,
It is a little ironic, though, that anybody who believes in the Bible would insist on such an interpretation of doctrinal development over time.
I say,
It is precisely the belief in the bible that leads one to expect doctrinal stability over time. The authors of the new testament go to great lengths to argue that the basis of salvation (grace through faith) has not changed since the original calling of Abraham. (Romans chapter 4, Galatians chapter 3, James chapter 2 )
Here is a syllogism for you
1) True Doctrine is from God (2nd Timothy 3:16 )
2) God does not change (Hebrews 13:8)
3) Therefore true doctrine does not evolve.
not rocket science
you say,
Almost all modern scholarship supports the conclusion that the theology of the Pentateuch evolved over time.
I say,
So the expectation of evolving theology come from belief in “modern scholarship” rather than belief in the Bible.
You say
The very clear evidence of contradictory opinions and theologies from different ancient theological camps is still there throughout the books of Genesis through Deuteronomy (and throughout much of the OT).
I say,
Could you present some examples of contradictory opinions in different books of scripture. It should be easy if the evidence is so darn clear.
The ancient Israelis like Jesus and the Apostles must of been real morons not to notice all the obvious contradictions that you and modern scholarship see.
peace
I think we can see that FOF speaks from his own desires not from a basis of reality; not even LDS reality.
Here’s the advantage a TBM has however. They can form LDS doctrine into anything they want to satisfy their emotional needs.
We know that the LDS have to earn their way to what ever reward they finally achieve. They earn it. It’s not grace, but here we go again. It’s LDS grace. This is a strange form of grace whereby the faithful Mormon can say they are saved by grace as long as they do everything they can to earn the god badge.
What does the apostle Paul harp on continually in his writings which appear in the NT. It’s that we are saved by grace and not works. And yet these TBMs will argue that that is what they believe. They then take it a step further and accuse Christians in not believing in the role of works in salvation. This is true of course. We don’t believe in works that results in salvation. We believe that faith results in salvation and then we live a transformed life that includes works. But those works are there to bring honor and glory to Jesus Christ and our Heavenly Father.
A Mormon’s works brings the Mormon honor and glory and eventually deification, they believe.
These LDS folks are totally lost with no hope.
My comment limit ran out yesterday so I emailed grindael that I found the answer to the riddle. Here’s what I wrote to him:
Mystery solved.
Elder Spencer W Kimball stated:
“The sin against the Holy Ghost requires such knowledge that it is manifestly impossible for the rank and file to commit such a sin” – miracle of forgiveness pg. 123
Also, as anecdotal evidence, other missionaries in the MTC during open Q&A’s (like I participated in) proposed this same question towards the apostle attending and the same answer was given, that pretty much the apostle was the only person in the room who could become a SOP.
During my Q&A I asked this question and wrote down my notes in big exciting exclamation marks “HE KNOWS WIHOUT FAITH!! WOAH!!” I was totally convinced back then. Now I know (from what tom phillips has shared) that this is the lie they are told to push.
So the definition has definitely changed. The reason I am conflating the SOP with the 2nd Anointing is because it has been done by modern apostles and leaders and taught this way for at least 30-50 years.
johnnyboy,
As an outsider never been TBM, I’d think that issues/doctrine like this would be fairly easy to define. After all, the LDS church claims to have living prophets that speak for the Mormon god. Alas, we find out that these guys are just speaking their opinion and put forth folklore, that is except when the faithful wannabee LDS apologists want them to be infallible.
We can go way back to the beginning of Smith’s creation and see that one of the features that drew people to this religion was the idea that individual “saints” could receive “revelation” also. This worked find as far as it went, however it soon became apparent to Smith that if anyone could hear from God (it was God at the time and not god), why would they need him?
I think Mormons still are into individual personal revelation, aren’t they? They must be, given the wide divergent opinions we see on this blog from Mormons who claim that, “if you want to know about Mormonism ask a Mormon”. Now that’s a total farce as we’ve seen from those who show-up here and post.
Bottom line for you lurkers; go read the NT and see what is presented there regarding God’s plan of salvation. You then have a choice. You can follow what God’s revealed Word says, or you can follow men who were, and still are today, uninspired, un-anointed and who can’t even figure out their own doctrine much less that of orthodox Christianity.
Make the choice to choose Jesus today and in so doing receive the gift of eternal life that God is offering you.
Johnnyboy,
I should have known. Kimball came out with that book while I was still a member. Good job finding that. All can see now, how that doctrine has been completely overhauled by later “apostles” and “prophets”. The fact is, Kimball has nothing to base his interpretation on. Yet, as with Legrand Richards, perhaps Kimball felt that, ” I have never been able to feel that the sons of Latter-day Saint fathers and mothers born under the covenant, are likely to be so classified”. In other words, “not OUR kids”. But then who COULD classify? Not those OUTSIDE the Church.
You have to ask yourself, why would the “apostle” be the only person who could become a SOP? Is their “experience” any different than anybody elses? Not really. They ALL claim witness by the “Holy Ghost”. None of them in the time period you mention, have claimed to have fulfilled the original charge to the 12, which was that their calling was not complete until they had SEEN JESUS. And this plays right into their hands because they want it to be known that somehow they are “special”, therefore only the “special” ones can have “such knowledge”, which is completely the opposite of what Smith and a long line of “apostles” and “prophets” taught.
This puts them above the lowly “rank and file.” But it’s funny isn’t it, for all their vaunted “knowledge”, the only thing they can say these days is, “we have enough scripture” and “we don’t know.”
Brigham Young once said,
So I ask, are Mormon “prophets” doing what Young states here? Is their confidence unshaken, their lives “pure and holy”, have they “fulfilled” their duties? Then they are filled with the “Holy Ghost”, right? So it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to be deceived or to be “led to destruction”. Is this true of Mormon “apostles”. If not, why did God call them to those positions?
If so, then how can they ever teach “folklore”? How can they ever teach false doctrine? How then, could Bruce McConkie later say that Brigham Young did? If the truth claims of Mormon “prophets” cannot be trusted, why follow them?
FoF,
Others have already addressed your points, and I don’t have much to add. However, I will state that your arguments come from a hope, not clear evidence. Look, it is clear your faith is still evolving and is still being altered to suit various needs. Its not reliable, if you ask me.
If you look at your comment that scholars say that the Pentateuch shows an evolving faith, you’ll notice it is a blanket statement with nothing to back it up. Its conclusory, meaning it only makes a conclusion without any backing evidence or logic. Some more information would be helpful to your cause, but I don’t expect you to ever get into much detail.
As to the resurrection, 1 Cor 15, there is much to this passage that requires a lot of time and understanding. Is it possible for a general, universal resurrection? Perhaps, but there is much more to it than that. If that is the case, there will be a distinct order of things and the ‘best’ will go first, leaving those damned to follow. It clearly does not state a single, universal time where everyone goes to heaven except the sons of perdition, which has been addressed above by others.
@Faithoffathers
Thanks for clarifying. I’m going to bring up some interesting Bible verses that perhaps you could comment on:
“But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.” (Romans 11:6,ESV)
“For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do. (2 Nephi 25:23)
If grace is ‘given’ after all we can do, isn’t it works? [Isn’t grace in the 2 Nephi reference only for those in celestial kingdom – “reconciled to God”]. How does it fare against Romans 11:6?
We know that by going back to the O.T. and bring up something about the Pentateuch in the
way Fof F did is only a diversion that some Mormons attempt in order to find a alibi for the
teaching track record of their apostles . The O.T. shows that God revealed His truth about
the coming Savior His payment for sin and salvation in a progressive manner –types and
shadows . But the Savior came and He appointed apostles to proclaim how all peoples can be
forgiven and receive what the O.T. peoples only dreamed about . Therefore the issue will always
be for us today about Jesus not Moses . What His apostles preached about salvation is what the
O.T. prophets pointed to ( Lk 23 : 25-27 ) . Knowledgeable Mormons know their leaders have
a spotty record when it comes to stable teaching about God , salvation ( even ordinances ) a
pattern of teachings that is not reliable , so they need to try and find some kind of alibi to make
it look ok . But every day finds Mormons who are discovering that their leaders can’t be relied
to teach accurately and have decided they will not be tossed to and fro any longer .
Eph 4:14 in the New Living Bible says :
Then we will no longer be like children forever changing our minds about what we believe
because someone has told us something different or because someone has cleverly lied to us
and made the lie sound like the truth . ”
This is a scenario Mormons can relate to after examining their history .
This thread shows that these men can’t make up their minds about gospel ordinances .
People concerned about finding the true gospel and church Body can read the New
Testament and see the church ( ordinances , offices ) and gospel of salvation ( Rom 1:16) .
Religious leaders who attempt to mix in their new ideas to these and pass them off as
” new light ” from God should be viewed with caution . 1 Jn 4: 1
FOF,
The truth about the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been revealed, period. There is no more. There is no slow-roll-out. You have taken an indefensible position and you look foolish and uninformed. You’re trying to defend the LDS sect’s prophets poor track record of inconsistency. You need to get serious. These guys you are placing your hopes on are fools; plain and simple, fools!
You don’t even follow the Mormon prophets. The FLDS sect does follow the 19th century Utah “revealed” doctrine of the Mormon “prophets”. If you want to follow original Mormon doctrine, then you need to join either the CofC or Temple Lot Mormon sects. Do you get the drift here? The restored gospel is a jumble of a mess because the prophets of Mormonism were men prophesying out of their own imaginations.
In order to embrace some form of the Mormon “restored” gospel, you then need to deny the NT revelation. There is no connection between the plan of salvation revealed in the NT and the one you are following in the ever changing of LDS Utah Mormonism.
Jude 3 says, “Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.”
Get that? “…..once for all delivered…” End of story. Finished. No more.
Falcon, when you use the phrase ” slow roll out ” to describe the Mormon gospel it really should
be re- phrased . I think a better way to describe it would be ” the shifting roll out ” , that can
better describe the vacillating pattern of teachings that Mormon leaders have exhibited
starting with Joseph Smith .
Concerning this thread topic of ordinances a church manual states , ” The Latter Days Saints
are the only ones who bear the authority of our Heavenly Father to administer in the
ordinances of the Gospel . The world has need of us . ” [ Teachings of the Presidents of the
Church— George Albert Smith , ch . 12 ]
What the world has need of is consistent reliable guidance in spiritual ( gospel ) truths .
Mormon leaders are not such guides . They may be well meaning individuals , but they
exhibited the same behavior that they have accused other religious leaders of — the purveyors
of shifting doctrines , the result of teaching their own ideas as gospel truths .
Listen to how a Mormon authority described the RLDS : ” As is commonly the case in
apostate churches of the world , the beliefs and doctrines of the Reorganized Church are
in a constant state of change and alteration . They have no true apostles and prophets at
their head to keep their members from being tossed to and fro , and carried about with
every wind of doctrine . ” [ Mormon Doctrine , 630 ] .
When we see what Mormon leadership have introduced as gospel preaching we see a
similar teaching behavior , even concerning temple ordinances .
People concerned about the true gospel can find it in the New Testament . Jesus’ apostles
taught it and it is still efficient even today because it is the power of God —Rom 1:16 .
No need to follow men who arise in these latter days claiming to be Jesus’ apostles and who
try and convince people to accept their “add on’s ” to what Paul taught . Gal 1:8 .
Grindael,
Almost all Biblical scholars agree that the Pentateuch is the product of multiple authors. While there exist debate about when those authors produced their respective narratives and from what school of theology they worked, there really is not much debate about the fundamental concept that Moses was not the author of the first five books of the Bible. This has been worked out quite convincingly. The debates really involve smaller sub-issues. They are about fragmentary vs supplementary roles of the respective narratives.
There are parallel stories within the Pentateuch, or doublets, that contradict each other in telling the stories of the patriarch and creation. When you separate these parallel stories, the contradictory claims disappear. And, each of these different narratives employs a different vocabulary. In addition, and maybe most importantly, each narrative advocates it own particular theological perspective which differs from the others.
For those who are not aware of this research, the text of the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Old Testament) combines narratives from 4 different schools of thought and theology. There is the Elohist narrative which is thought to have come from the northern kingdom of Israel roughly in the 9th century B.C. It’s theology places God is a somewhat disengaged relationship to man. According to this narrative, God’s name is Elohim or El and appears in person at times. He appeared to Moses at Horeb, not Sinai. Another narrative is called J, for Jahwist. In this narrative, God’s name is YHWH, or Jehovah. He is an anthropomorphic God, walking in the Garden of Eden and taking a very much “hands’-on” role in the creation and in the affairs of man. After the fall of Adam, YHWH ensured that there was a great gulf between man and God. This narrative dates to the 7th century in the southern kingdom of Judah.
The Priestly source narrative, called P, is very focused on rules and regulations and boundaries. You will find a lot of the clean vs. unclean laws in the P narrative. This narrative seems to advocate from a strong role of the Priestly class and corrects some of the E narrative in this regard. It was produced in the post-Exilic period. Until Moses, it refers to God as El Shaddai. There is an emphasis on ritual, and this source states that cleanness comes from temple ritual. A sub-source within the Priestly source is the Holiness school- a theological school that emphasizes that holiness comes from obeying, humility, goodness, etc., not just from ritual.
Then there is the Deuteronomist, or D. This was the latest source and produced its work in the 5th century B.C. This school of theology was strongly monotheistic and edited the previous writings to make them align more with the Deuteronomist theological bent.
The bottom line is that there was certainly no consensus on theology among Israelite leaders, and the Torah includes narratives from groups of very different schools of thought.
The point is that it is hypocritical for you guys to criticize any process of development that occurred with the restoration of the church over a period of decades. Yes- truth is truth and does not change. But man’s perspective and understanding absolutely changes over time. God does not wave a wand over our heads (or the prophet’s head) producing an instant complete and 100% accurate understanding of everything.
MJP- I never said that all will be resurrected at the same time. In fact, the Book of Mormon says that there are different times for the resurrection based upon a person’s righteousness. Christ was resurrected first. Then the righteous. Then, down the road, the wicked will be resurrected.
FoF,
“God does not wave a wand over our heads (or the prophet’s head) producing an instant complete and 100% accurate understanding of everything.”
Is that so? Then why have past LDS leaders been so certain that our very salvation is dependant upon certain practices or beliefs?
I don’t know much about the argument you are making that the Pentateuch was the product of a developing theology. However, I did some research on it a couple years ago and found that the argument you rely on is decidedly not accepted on a wide basis. I notice you cited absolutely nothing in your last post, too. Would you, as a surgeon, accept the claim that someone could cure cancer with a specific laser without viewing that person’s basis and sources for making the claim so that you and others can review the sources? No, you would not, so why should anyone accept what you say without sources?
You keep claiming it is hypocritical of us to do this or that but you continually do the exact same things. You really do not realize the faulty arguments and premises that you develop. You have no proof of anything you say. If you had it, you would provide it. By proof I mean something more than a belief or a hope. You need more than a hope that Peter practiced polygamy or other temple rituals. You need more than faith that Paul baptized for the dead. Single, isolated phrases in the Bible do not prove the practice, too.
Your game here is to show how we have faults inour arguments. There may be some, indeed, we are talking about faith. However, we can go to Jerusalem and many, many other places in the Middle East and prove that certain things happened. We have documents showing so much of what is recorded in the Bible is true. Does that prove our faith? Nope, but it certainly gives it a creedance that yours lacks. We cannot even see the plates that Smith supposedly translated, let alone go to any site and see the great civilization that lived here. There’s no manuscripts of anything recorded in Smiths’s work. None. Not only is there no evidence of anything in the Book of Mormon, your faith has far too many large and significant changes to doctrine and practice to take it without asking serious questions. What was once held to be a requirement is now frowned upon and swept under the rug.
Your leadership throws your god himself under the rug, too, when it pushes aside doctrines such as the Curse of Cain and polygamy. The doctrines, which prior generations put forth as revelations from god, are now dismissed as the product of faulty men. If they spoke for god, as your present leaders speak for god (nothing has changed in how god transmits his messages, has he?), why should we not think that later generations of Mormons will throw Monson and company aside, too? All the while, they speak for god, though, right?
The faults in your arguments are so large they cannot be ignored. You can spend all day and night trying to show the faults in ours, but we are ready to defend with specific information and point you to the source. We can show a consistency in our faith from the time of Paul to the present. That’s a long time… Much longer than 180 years…
MJP- thanks for the response.
You asked, “Is that so? Then why have past LDS leaders been so certain that our very salvation is dependant upon certain practices or beliefs?”
I don’t see a contradiction in my statement and the history of our church leadership. We do, indeed, believe that salvation and exaltation require us to do certain things, including enter covenants with God through saving ordinances. The fact that a full understanding of what that entailed took some time to be revealed is not inherently contradictory.
As far the as SOURCE CRITICISM or the Documentary Hypothesis, I can offer countless references. I don’t because the information on the topic is so ubiquitous- it is so easy to access. Do a google search and do a little research. If you really need some direction in learning about it, I am perfectly willing to offer suggestions, but it should be something you can do in 30 minutes fairly easily. And there is not much debate about it- almost all scholars agree that the Pentateuch came from many different authors with different theologies and preferences in representing Israel’s history as well as that of the patriarchs.
There are mountains of evidences that support the Book of Mormon and our theology. Those evidences do not currently include welcomes signs to Zarahemla or manuscripts from 600 B.C. But those are quite superficial. The evidences that are so accessible are more interesting and engaging. If you want to claim there is no evidence for what we believe- that is fine. I could not care less. I simply have had a polar opposite experience.
The curse of Cain teaching is not necessarily swept under the rug. The connection between that teaching and the reason for withholding Priesthood from black members is questioned. But that is another topic.
Polygamy is not swept under the rug. It was practiced, and it was a result of Divine commandment. And when God wanted his people to stop practicing polygamy, He told them to cease practicing it. We do not deny the practice at all.
You cannot even come close to demonstrating a consistent practice of Christianity from the time of Paul to today. There are gaps so big over that period, it makes your statement sound extremely naive.
I understanding you are throwing it all out there to make our church look unsteady or inconsistent. You really have not engaged my argument regarding the fourth article of faith, which is the topic of this thread. I think my points are legitimate and reasonable. And considering the history of the foundational book in your faith, I think it is extremely hypocritical to be so upset about the addition of a clause in our fourth article of faith. Our doctrine on the plan of salvation was revealed over the course of two decades. Yet the disagreements and contradictions within the Pentateuch are still present in the text today. I think your perspective is very common, but very unrealistic and quite uninformed about your own book of scripture.
Fof F , you never cease to amaze me . You’re trying to use some theory about the Pentateuch
as your answer for why the erractic teaching record of Mormon leaders should be embraced
as legit ? That’s ridiculous . What’s silly about your answer is that according to your church
Moses was the author of the Pentateuch and this is confirmed by latter day revelation . Yet
you said : ” Moses was not the author of the first five books of the Bible .”
Your church puts out information that says that Moses was the motivating force behind the
compilation of the Pentateuch . So to try and use theories about it in such a way to justify
how Mormon leaders could’nt make up their minds in relation to important gospel truths like
ordinances , even temple ordinances , is besides the point . We have very direct claims made by
Mormon leadership about themselves and what they offer : they claimed to be Jesus’ latter
days apostles who restored Jesus’ church in exactly the same form as it existed 2000 years
ago , and they claimed to have the very same gospel that Paul preached . So we can evaluate
those claims by looking in the New Testament and comparing . The apostles went out after
Pentecost to preach the gospel of salvation ( Rom 1:16; Col 1:23 ) . They did’nt have to go back
a few years later and tell the previous converts that there are now more ordinances necessary
to do to be accepted by God . They did’nt have to tell these people that now there were Gods
and Goddesses in heaven , that the One God they were taught was’nt even unique nor possessed
the most power and dominion because there are Gods above Him ! And they did’nt have to
tell them that now a man could marry plural wives it was now an essential gospel / church
ordinance that men who qualified could practice . Or that a new gospel sealing ordinance
where men could be sealed to men in order to become sons and ” legal heirs of salvation ” .
There were more examples with confusion about ordinances , even temple ordinances , but
this is enough to see the picture and render a verdict of this restored gospel being instead
a substitute gospel . Mormon leaders simply mixed in their own ideas to what Paul taught
thus altering the true gospel of salvation . This behavior is what commenced a great apostasy
according to Mormons and why the Mormon prophet is needed to provide sound doctrine .
However upon examining the teachings Mormon leaders once gave creedence to as being
part of Jesus’ gospel , we might as well follow any number of other latter days prophets even
those of the ” Mormon ” flavor ( Christopher Nemelka , Matthew Gill , even Warren Jeffs , )
Mormon leaders can’t be trusted as consistent reliable guides in gospel ordinance preaching .
The Mormon people are the victims of a broken trust .
The true gospel that saves is in the New Testament , it’s still efficient for anyone who reads
or hears it and turns to it’s author to receive the fullest of salvation in heaven with God .
“The fact that a full understanding of what that entailed took some time to be revealed is not inherently contradictory.”
No, but the items that have been revealed and altered is quite astounding. We are talking about a very short period of time (about 180 years now) and several very important doctrines have been changed or dismissed. This is not just throwing it all out there to make your church look unsteady or inconsistent. Its a fact. The changes are not merely clarifications without significant alteration of the original meaning: they often contradict each other and set aside what was previously seen as unalterable truth. Well, they are indeed alterable, as we see over and over again. This is not merely an opinion taken from thin air: the evidence concerning it is there for all to see.
I actually have done some research on the Pentateuch since my last posting– hardly time to become an expert, but some research nonetheless. Here is an interesting article: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=36
You’ll notice in it that it isolates critics of the Pentateuch to critics of the church in general. You’ll also notice that it has a credible response to the critics’ claims.
As such, your use of the critics argument says a lot about your position. You have to use something that critics use to deny the authenticity of the Bible to make your point. You also conflate something they state took many hundred of years into something that has happened in your faith in 180. Further, you mistakenly assume that because it happened with the first 5 books, then it is OK for it to happen in your faith, too. There is no necessity this be true.
As to the evidence for the Book of Mormon, this wiki article seems to do a good job of going through it, even offering the LDS view. It is well cited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon
So, I keep telling you that you need to pay attention to the problems in your own faith before you call others out for theirs.
Being honest here, Christianity has holes in it from an evidentiary stand point. You mention the supposed inconsistencies in our history. I’d love to hear what it is you are looking at, but I can guess. There are Christians who have taken different views through time and some of these were significant. However, not one has ever denied the central tenets of our faith or an item that is crucial to salvation, namely the primacy of faith. This is in contrast to your faith which has added and subtracted elements necessary for salvation/exaltation, including but not limited to the very definition of salvation in a mere 180 years. (It has often done so with very interesting timing.)
Our faith comes down to a single element: belief in Jesus Christ as our personal saviour. It really is that simple. We can look back 2000 years, and even earlier, to see that God wants us to believe in Him. I urge you to at least try to understand what it is we believe and what is most important instead of focusing on these distractions and tools to prop up your own faith.
This is precisely what you do: you look at other things and say that others do it so we are OK. Its a mess. Its all passing the buck, never taking responsibility for your faith and its consequences. It always glossing over the real issues, never really addressing your own problems by alternatively looking to the problems of others.
MJP,
It should be noted that both you and grindael link to apologetic sites in response to the Documentary hypothesis or Source Criticism (actually, neither of you have really responded to Source Criticism at all). I think that is significant- that you must appeal to an evangelical apologetics site. Are you OK with me referring to an LDS apologetic site for information on the BOM, etc.? Will you accept those sources? This is the double standard I so often refer to. You use two entirely different sets of standards to evaluate the Bible and Book of Mormon. For the Bible, you rely upon a Christian apologetic perspective. But with the Book of Mormon, you insist on appealing to non-believing, non-LDS sources. Do you see that as an inconsistency or problem?
Second of all, the article you linked to really doesn’t deal with the evidence that supports the multiple authors of the Pentateuch idea. Rather, the article deals with some of the implications of the multiple authors and some of the anachronism in the Bible. The two issues are not one and the same. It does a very poor job of engaging the evidence of multiple authors. I suggest finding a more academic source, one without the evangelical bias. At least if you want to appear objective here. (At least get a source that engages the multiple author evidence).
I believe Moses existed. I believe he was responsible for much of the original content or tradition found in Genesis. But I believe there were multiple authors, as the evidence strongly supports, for the books of the OT and molded and edited that more ancient content to fit their theological and political motives.
This is a very good issue that demonstrates our respective approaches and the problems I believe the religious critics of the church must face. The multiple author reality does not pose a problem form a member of the church. And this is a result of the way we see the Bible. We do not see it as the inerrant Word of God that came straight from heaven with no influence from man, culture, or bias. It is a collection of sacred writings. But you guys do not see it that way. And the evidence is overwhelmingly against your position.
It is very telling that religious people who spend so much of their time and energy criticizing another religion actually know very little about the foundation of their own religion and the implications of science and evidence on that religion.
Criticism has played an important role in the development of LDS understanding of its own doctrines and history. My own testimony and perspective of eternal truth has grown tremendously as a result of engaging the criticisms against that faith. But I see an enormous void among our critics who believe in the Bible. In other words, they are routinely very unfamiliar with how the Bible stands up against secular evidences. I have never really brought this topic up because it is not my intent to make anybody really doubt their faith- even if I think their faith is apostate. But I thought this thread was a good spot to point out the lack of understanding among our critics of their own foundation.
I think I have a pretty good understanding of what you believe. And I know what I believe. It is the double standard and uninformed nature of the anti position that I point out.
FOF,
Once again, you fail to see the point. It is disingenuous to use the argument about the Documentary Hypothesis in the way that you are, because it is simply speculation. It is speculation based upon what is written in a text that has come down to us from thousands of years ago. The same scholars that support the Documentary Hypothesis, also disagree amongst themselves. You are speculating that the Torah “includes narratives from groups of very different schools of thought”, because no one knows anything about it, because there are NO DOCUMENTS, DISCOVERIES, TABLETS, etc. to have a “school of thought”. There is only what is written in the text we have, and that has and can be interpreted differently. For example (from one of the links I provided which explains all this),
You can rant all you want about hypocrisy, but it is you who are being hypocritical, when you know very well that this is just a hypothesis with no evidence to support it except speculation about the existing text. There is NOTHING to confirm ANY of it. It MAY be reasonable, it may NOT be. We simply DON’T KNOW, and you acting like it is a FACT, shows that you don’t know what you are talking about, or you want to try and put one over on people to support another one of your divergent arguments. You saying that there was no “consensus on theology among the Israelite leaders” is a fantasy. We have consensus in the Bible. There are no proven links to Ras Shamra, there is no evidence to prove that there were multiple schools of theological thought in ancient Israel that weren’t condemned as such by Israel’s prophets.
I know you WANT to tear the Bible down. That makes you feel good about the big problem you have, the Book Of Mormon. But let’s get the facts straight and get it right. This is something that seems awfully difficult for you, but try, FOF, try.
A lot of scholars believe that the Second half of the Book of Isaiah was written AFTER Lehi supposedly left for Jerusalem. They call this the The “Deutero-Isaiah” Theory. This effectively destroys the Book of Mormon. I suppose that you are all for that theory too, FOF?
“Simply speculation.” Grindael- you are always entertaining. Seriously.
How do you explain repetitions of the same story- like Noah, Joseph, the creation? The text has multiple versions of the same stories- and those variations contradict each other. And they use different vocabulary and names for God. By a very large margin, modern scholars agree that the authorship of the Pentateuch is not what has been traditionally believed. And the text has been influenced by the desire of many who sought to strengthen their theological position.
Your dependence upon an evangelical spin is very obvious. And that is the hypocrisy that is so obvious. You guys can’t even consider any of the research from LDS sources on the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham. You insist on only those opinions that come from non-believers. But when it comes to issues and controversies with the Bible- you must only consider the opinions of believers and those who share your views while ignoring and dismissing the enormous body of modern scholarship.
Moss and Owens were entirely correct in stating that you guys are losing the battle and don’t even know it. This losing position comes largely from refusing to engage modern scholarship on your own turf involving your own religion.
I believe in the claims of the Bible. But I recognize that those claims are not what we have traditionally thought. I believe Adam had a system of writing as did those who followed after him. I believe in the exodus and Moses. But I believe the history, stories, and traditions were redacted to some degree by scribes of different theological backgrounds. None of this research hurts my position on the Bible. But this type of research absolutely hurts your views of the Bible. Until you are more balanced in your approach to both your own religion and mine, this conflict between you and Biblical scholarship will continue.
LOL. Here is another source, pro-DH. I thought I had linked to this article instead of the Cambridge Scholar Gordon Wenham’s, so there would be two differing viewpoints, but I messed up the link, so read away. It doesn’t change anything, because all of the pro DH arguments are simply speculation.
The difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon is that the Bible is a REAL HISTORY BOOK, and Evangelical, as well as other scholars, use the same evidences to determine their interpretations. You can read both sides and judge for yourself. I also admitted in my post that the DH has been evolving and devolving over time, but was not abandoned.
I don’t care if you link to LDS sites. Go right ahead, (not that it will help), because they don’t have any evidence to present. What do you mean by “accept”? I’ve read almost all of them and evaluated what they postulate. I’ve discussed it in depth here and other places. I don’t have to ACCEPT them at all, but I’ve read and studied their arguments. The problem with the Book of Mormon, is there are NO PRO sources that aren’t LDS. No one will touch it, for obvious reasons. And most of the “non-believing, non-LDS sources” are FORMER LDS.
If you want to poison the well of the Bible, go right ahead. That is typical of some Mormons, because they really want to promote the BOM over it anyway. Why don’t you enlighten us about the Isaiah problem? They use the exact same kinds of “evidence” to determine this, as they do for the DH. Why does FAIR reject multiple authors for Isaiah? To defend the Book of Mormon.
Mormons want to have it both ways. Too bad that is not how reality works.
I don’t have to explain it. YOU DO. And so do those that postulate the theory. I already gave links to adequate explanations that you ignore. Again, there is no PROOF of multiple authors. What is not proof is SPECULATION. Where are the texts to back up what you say, FOF? Where are they? You can’t say that something is a fact when it is not. Oh yeah, you do that all the time with the Book of Mormon. I forgot. Get back to reality, FOF. You are lost somewhere in the Twilight Zone.
Entertaining indeed.
Bravo Falcon.
You have absolutely no idea what my views of the Bible are. None at all, genius.
FoF: did you read the article I posted? Or are you simply going to tear it down because it is a Christian site? When there are many, many others out there (I have not read them all, but I do not need to) that suggest the same. The critical nature of those who swear by the theory is telling. My use of this particular article only shows one article. The article is well cited and is based in reality. If you can show me an LDS article that demonstrates the history and evidences for the LDS church I will absolutely look at it openly. Of course, it must be substantiated by non-LDS scholarship and opinion, which the article I posted was supported by non-Christian evidence.
I fully agree with Grindael’s statements that your use of this argument is to tear down the Bible and lift yourself up. I agree with him that your use of the argument is proof that we are hypocritical only shows your own limited viewpoint and bias. I agree with him that the argument proves nothing.
“I think I have a pretty good understanding of what you believe. And I know what I believe. It is the double standard and uninformed nature of the anti position that I point out.” Good, you think you have a pretty good understanding of what we believe. Now prove it. Demonstrate to us that you in fact understand what we believe. You’ve yet to come even close to it. Everything, and I mean everything. you point to in our faith is wrong or off base. Its one thing to think you know something, it is something different to actually know it.
And because you have failed to accurately describe our faith, you miss so much of where you are making the same mistakes you accuse us of. Its a classic case of Christ’s admonition about worrying about the plank in your own eye.
And for what it is worth, I have directly admitted there are holes in Christian apologetics. I fully admit this is a discussion of faith wherein we will never be able to prove our case with 100% certainty, until Christ comes back, of course. I understand the limitations of this discussion. It can be a lot of “I’m rubber and you’re glue.” There’s a lot of subjectivity in these discussions wherein our fundamental assumptions guide our understanding. I admit all of that.
However, I also understand that there is a foundation from which we can argue and from which we can objectively look at the discussion. The Bible, which is remarkably consistent from start to finish and the words we now read are remarkably similar to the words Jonah and his cohorts read up through Paul and beyond, is that foundation. How do we know? We have the documents. While we do not have the original parchments Paul wrote to the Romans, we have so many copies that are all so strikingly similar, we have confidence to know what the original said. Bear in mind it was customary to copy and send to other cities or congregations or people. This is the second objective foundation: historical evidence. While there may be some gaps in Biblical archeology, the gaps are getting closed more and more. The Bible is an amazingly accurate history book.
You can go through sources that tear down the Bible, but what does that accomplish? It destroys your faith, too. It destroys your faith by destroying your foundational book, too. The Book of Mormon is not a stand alone book, is it? No! It has a foundation upon the Bible, too. So, if the Bible falls, it really puts questions into the Book of Mormon and the entire foundation of your faith. If we cannot trust that the Bible is accurate, we cannot trust that Jesus in fact died and atoned for our sins, a foundational point for you.
I know, I know, you don’t see the Bible as infallible. But as I just said, your inability to understand our foundations is ultimately the downfall of your very position. It is the source of your hypocrasy. Mormonism is supposedly a restored version of Christianity, yet it cannot prove it restored anything and it fails to accurately differentiate what it is we actually believe vs. what Christianity should be.
Your tactic of pointing out our faults (and I am not admitting everything you claim is a fault) fails to address the faults of your own. The tactic rather is a game wherein you infer that you’re no worse than we are. It reminds me of tactics in a custody case, where the mother tries to make the dad look bad and where that dad tries to make mom look worse. Its a game, its manipulative, and it never answers the most relevant question: who is in fact the appropriate parent to get the children. It only seeks to lift one person over the other. In other words, its a game for power, for the upper hand. It is not a game to get to the right answer.
The evidence is there for everyone to see. The arguments are there for everyone to see. Your arguments don’t help people find the truth, though. They are designed to manipulate and tear us down further than where you are. However, they do not address the real issue: which faith is the more appropriate faith to recieve eternal life, however eternal life is defined. Your tactics do not address why someone should choose your god over our God.
What’s worse is that your attempts to define our God always miss the mark, which renders your arguments incorrect and useless. Yet, your insistence on pointing out our flaws shows no inclination to come to a correct understanding of our God, which means you have no inclination to correct your arguments and make them relevant. Stated another way, your tactic will never address what is really at issue. If you continue with this tactic, you will never make a relevant point, missing what really matters.
What really matters is who God is and what He did for us. In that, Christianity has been consistent throughout time, whereas LDS bring forth a restoration of something that there is no proof ever existed. Additionally, LDS have already altered course on several very significant matters, demonstrating what we are told, in the Bible, will be times where people are led astray and to and fro.
These are not my opinions, they are facts, as demonstrated more than sufficiently by others with more detailed knowledge of such matters than myself. The plain words demonstrated by past leaders and present do not need interpretation. They speak loudly and clearly.
Now, to conclude, I will continue to urge you to come to know my faith and what it is we teach, not what you think it is we teach. You hold the same expectation of us, so failure to do so is inherently hypocritical. Further, failing to do so will always keep us in the weeds rather than discuss what really matters: God’s very identity and what that can do for us.
What research? You know I’ve read all of your previous posts and looked up your BOM “evidence”. I can blow a huge hole in all of it, all by myself. And you have RESEARCH on the Book of Abraham? That proves that it is a document written by Abraham himself as Jo Smith said it was? I’ve got to see this. If your talking about “long scrolls”, and all that other blather, I can also blow a hole in all that easily, all by myself. I’ve been doing it for years. But bring it on, FOF. Bring it on.
grindael- your spin is eternal, my friend. When did I insist on multiple authors being “fact?” I didn’t. I said that that is where the evidence points and what almost all scholars support. So you are here exaggerating my statements and position. Even more, you raise the bar requiring “proof” for the source criticism evidence. Do you even know what “proof” means and what that entails? I don’t think so. You try to manipulate my words and the argument in general. You are trying to defend a position that almost none of the modern scholars support. That is my main point. Your position has not been “proven” and is not established as “fact” either. Manipulation will not help your position.
Your continued rant about “speculation” suggests you are completely unfamiliar with research and scholarly language. Scholarly discussions in papers will almost always approach conclusions in a tempered, balanced manner, avoiding black and white statements. It is a reflection of objectivity- or at least the attempt to be objective. A decent discussion in a paper offers multiple explanations for the observed results as well as possible confounding variables and complicating factors. I have always thought it telling that critics like we find here mock the language of LDS scholarship because it includes language that avoids the black and white, absolutist, dogmatic conclusions. Instead, you find words like possibly, suggests, reasonable, might, etc. Yet, the uninformed critic sees that as doubt and weakness. I have seen critics make an issue of this type of language so many times. They reveal their own bias and inability to read scholarly literature. And your comments reflect this unrealistic perspective as well.
OK FOF,
Let’s just analyze EXACTLY what you said. You SAID that you said,
First, genius, here is what I said,
I didn’t say you “insisted” on anything. First deception. Now WHY did I say this? Because of what you ORIGINALLY SAID,
The text HAS BEEN influenced? How so? Because some SPECULATE that it has been, based only on ANALYSIS. You declare this as if it were a FACT. Second Deception.
But it is not. And all your ranting can’t make it so. Who EXACTLY “influenced” the text? Names please. Circumstances please. Comparisons between the original and the “influenced” text please. So, FOF since you are making this obviously FACTUAL declaration, where is your PROOF? You haven’t any. As James Rochford writes,
What you do FOF, (And I don’t) is simply condemn all Evangelical scholars without giving us reasons WHY. I, on the other hand, take the very quotes of Mormon leaders and SHOW them for what they are. I compare and contrast and provide HISTORICAL FACTS, diary accounts, descriptions, and doctrinal statements. You hardly ever do this. You simply lob out accusations without backing any of it up with EVIDENCE. Your “Evidence” for the Documentary Hypothesis is simply SPECULATION. That is all it is. The reasons are obvious to anyone but you. It may be scholarly speculation, but it is still speculation. For example, there is David Clines, hardly an Evangelical, and is from the University of Sheffield, Biblical Studies, and now has Emeritus status. He takes what is called SOURCE ANALYSIS, for that is all that this is, and wrote this article about it, which states,
He then delves into the pros and cons of Source Analysis. He does mention those who have an agenda,
And still others who disagree,
He then adds,
Kuhn also said, ““All methodologies… have their limits.” Clines then says,
Your comment, FOF, that “…there is not much debate about it- almost all scholars agree that the Pentateuch came from many different authors with different theologies and preferences in representing Israel’s history as well as that of the patriarchs” has just been proven to be a false statement, by someone who is not an Evangelical and who does not reject the DH. This has been MY POINT all along, and shows that your argument based on the DH is untenable.
HUH? Are you kidding me? The language you describe, ” possibly, suggests, reasonable, might, etc.” isn’t given because people are simply being polite, or reasonable. You are out of your mind. These terms are used, because the author(s) are SPECULATING and analyzing. The reason why REASONABLE people “make an issue” of this type of language, is just because it is speculation based simply upon analysis without empirical proof. And even when there is, there are still problems when something can’t be scientifically proven. (Like literary analysis).
What you are doing here, is trying to villainize anyone who doesn’t agree with someone’s THEORIES. You want to portray them as bias, because that is the ONLY argument you have. You have offered NO EVIDENCE in this entire thread to back up the DH. You have only described what it is. Where is YOUR evidence? Why should anyone here believe that what you are portraying as FACT, really is? You don’t convince, you divert. You attack the person. You do this so much that it is tiresome and aggravating, and hence I treat you as you ought to be treated, as simply a troll who cannot offer anything substantial about Mormonism or anything that has to do with the Bible or Biblical research or exegesis.
To show you how far off from EVIDENCE you are with the DH, lets take the case of the Merneptah Stele. We have an actual stone stele with what MANY scholars think is the word Israel on it. Here is one example, published by the American Schools of Oriential Research:
And yet, some think that it may NOT be the word “Israel”. Why? Because of translation issues. But we have an actual piece of physical evidence and still there are problems. But notice the language in the abstract above doesn’t include “possibly, maybe, might be, etc.”
How much MORE SO, are the problems for the Documentary Hypothesis!! We don’t know what the ORIGINAL TEXTS looked like, nor how they were translated. We only have COPIES of COPIES. How anyone can say, as you did: “And the text HAS BEEN influenced by the desire of many who sought to strengthen their theological position.” is beyond me, unless you simply didn’t read what you said was so “easy to find” on the internet. There is no way that you could possibly verify that statement, and the only reason for making such a statement is to deceive. You know this, and yet you keep doing it, over and over again.
I know one thing. I know far more about research and scholarly language than you do. Your posts PROVE that you don’t have any idea what those are. I’ve had actual Mormon Historians that have won awards commend me for my research skills and scholarly language. I know what I’m talking about. You have shown that you do not. My “position”? What do you mean, “my position”? I’ve never given MY POSITION. I’ve simply said that the Documentary Hypothesis is speculation. And it is. Unlike you, I’ll wait until there is actual credible EVIDENCE, before I take a “position.” The only manipulator here, is you, because you manipulate what people say, into things they do not. I’ve shown PROOF by actually QUOTING what you have said, you, on the other hand, have shown nothing, as usual.
And here are two scholars that are hardly Evangelicals that totally disagree about the Documentary Hypothesis. There are many more out there, not necessarily Evangelicals. Another disingenuous argument from FOF has been debunked folks.
@Faithoffathers
It’s good to see you engaging on the forum. However, I’m still awaiting an answer for my post on grace vs. works.
Thanks.
Once again we have front seats to watch Fof F use his skilled rhetoric to successfully divert
attention away from the main point of a thread . He’s not the first Mormon who prides himself
being well read in scholarly literature but who fails to anchor himself to what his leaders have
offically stated many times about a certain doctrine / belief . So briefly , it needs to repeated
that although his attempt to use the ” scholarly community ” theories about Moses not being
the author of the Pentateuch , those with more priesthood position have taught that Moses was
was the author . Hopefully that will end this rabbit trail he has crafted . It is no answer for why
we should trust Mormon apostles . They were to confused about what should be introduced
into their church as important ordinances for the church body to practice , and to proclaim
as part the gospel of Jesus Christ . This happened 1700 years after Jesus established His
church and sent out apostles to teach the people the gospel . Unfortunately despite the
promises to provide doctrinal stability too many latter days prophets only mangle true gospel
teachings because the new doctrines they introduce are only their own ideas , a inner witness
but not from the Spirit of truth .
The Mormon people have been short changed by latter days false prophets —-Matt 24:11 .
We’re hear to help point them back to the bed rock of the Christian faith concerning Jesus’
gospel — the New Testament . By anchoring their beliefs about church ordinances in the
teachings of Jesus’ true apostles can go a long way in providing safety from latter days
imitation apostles and their so called ” restored ” gospel of Jesus Christ .
Good points Mike,
So FOF has to chuck this Book of Mormon scripture in 1 Nephi 5:
Since the DH is set in stone by almost ALL scholars (according to FOF) when are the Mormons going to change that verse and erase the word “Moses”?
And I suppose that we must also eject the Book of Moses from the Mormon Canon too. What say, FOF? Or was Jo Smith simply lying? That also throws out the Jo Smith Translation, which is totally inconsistent with the Documentary Hypothesis. Also, the first two Chapters of the Book of Abraham have to go.
What about this “vision”? Did Jo just make it up?
Who was God talking to here? Anonymous Redactors? LOL, talk about hypocrisy. FOF can’t reconcile this with modern theory.
So, FOF needs to gut his own scriptures that Jo Smith ascribed to Moses, since he really wrote none of it. Funny how this works, isn’t it?
Sidney B. Sperry wrote in 1995:
Another Mormon writes,
Yet, FOF lambastes me for saying it is speculation, and that only Evangelical Christians think so. Go figure.
Yes, there are Mormons who accept the DH. Kevin Barney did a long article about it for Dialogue. But not all agree, and of course you have to accept Modern Mormon apologist interpretations of Mormon Scripture to make all of it jibe, which contradict their “prophets” and “apostles” statements about Mormon Scripture.
But can you appeal to any Mormon “Prophets” and “apostles” for answers to this? NOPE. Funny how that works, too. Only the “experts” like FOF care to enlighten us, and of course he contradicts his own “prophets” and “apostles”.
Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
grindael,
You are conflating two large issues. Source criticism or source analysis does not require that the large scale claims of the Pentateuch be false or even challenged. It is an explanation as to how the final draft of the Pentateuch developed. Many people have extrapolated from the concept behind and findings of source criticism to question the basic claims of the Old Testament. But that is certainly not a requirement despite your portrayal of the field. And you are conflating those two things here.
To use an analogy, you are taking the position that because two different prosecutors argue over the methods of arguing the evidence in a murder case, nobody actually was murdered. The arguments and debates about source criticism within the scholarly community are largely over methodologies and assumptions as well as the extent or ramifications of multiple authors (historical, for example). There is very little debate among scholars over the question of whether Moses personally wrote all of the 5 “books of Moses.”
I again point out that you are using as one of your main sources a person who has earned a Bachelor’s degree in English (James Rochford). His paper is filled with polemical statements with no support. Is there a reason we should place significant weight on his opinion? Or is it just that he is stating your argument in a decent manner?
And David Clines- what is his opinion on source criticism and the authorship of the Pentateuch? The paper you pull all your quotations from states quite clearly that Clines does indeed believe in multiple authors of the original documents included in the Pentateuch and at least one redactor. Now look at those scholars he quotes in that article:
J.H. Marks- He acknowledges that within the text of the flood narrative, ‘The position of separate strands in the biblical story is apparent, but any theory to explain the phenomenon completely is necessarily only a working hypothesis …” In other words, he recognizes two different original documents included in the narrative. But he is recognizing the limitations of trying to explain the relationship and weight between those two documents and the redactor. Hardly an argument to support one author.
Jean Lewis Ska- “the J material in the Flood story is not an independent narrative but no more than a set of late fragmentary additions to the Priestly writer’s work.” Again- this scholar recognizes more than one author in the story. A “priestly writer (not Moses), and a later author of the J material.
John Van Seters- “argued, to the contrary, that it is the J source that is complete and that P is no more than minor embellishments and supplements to J.” Again, this scholar believes there were “embellishments” to the story by a later redactor or editor. He is a very famous scholar who has done a lot of work on the Yahwist, including his book, “Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (1992). Hardly a support to your argument.
R. Norman Whybray- believed in one author. Check number one for you!
Thomas Kuhn- a physicist and scientist. Studied paradigm shifts and had nothing to do with Biblical studies. Clines states in another paper concerning the DH, “inevitably, we must expect to be stuck with that old paradigm for a long time; for a paradigm, says Kuhn, is declared invalid only if an alternative candidate is available to take its place.” In other words, until a better model presents itself, the Documentary hypothesis is the foremost working model. Hardly a strength to your argument.
Cline’s last statement that you quote is simply saying that not all “scholarship” on the Pentateuch must be based upon source criticism in order to be considered “scholarship.” Why did you think that this statement helped your argument?
In all, Cline includes a balanced perspective, including opinions from various different schools of thought (only one from a scholar who believes in one author). He is acknowledging the limitations of current scholarship, as I mentioned before is typical of scholarly language. He very much takes the voice that I briefly described, using phrases such as “as far as I know,” “in my opinion,” “it is arguable,” “it might well be,” “may have,” “may regard,” and others that are not “black and white.” This is precisely the language I alluded to.
In another paper, Cline says this regarding the Documentary Hypothesis, “We are far from the invalidating of the old paradigm. But the invisible revolution that is raising issues of value rather than truth, that is insisting on focussing on meaning, on textuality, on ethics, on the ideology of the biblical texts — all of them irrelevant to questions of the origins of the literature — may be simply displacing, rather than resolving, the questions of Pentateuchal origins. We can, if we choose, see these new interests as merely “additions” to the traditional scope of biblical criticism, no more than a broadening out of the field and thus no threat to the standard paradigm, but a longer perspective may regard their infiltration into the discipline as truly revolutionary.”
You have tried to pigeon hole my argument into one involving the Documentary Hypothesis alone. Yet I am referring to any scholarly opinion and evidence that points to more than one author for the Pentateuch, and have stated that multiple times. But because most scholars have moved on to more developed or refined models (all of which subscribe to more than one author idea), you think it helps you to focus only upon the DH. In doing this, you are essentially making a straw man argument. There is little debate among most Biblical scholars on the question of whether there is one author of the Pentateuch. Almost all scholars would agree that there are more than one author of those five books.
Your conflating of two issues here is very evident by your inclusion in your post a reference to the Merneptah Stele. What in the world does that have to do with my argument? Again- you are trying to make a straw man argument. Although convenient, such an argument really just muddies the water.
By the way, the reference to the “five books of Moses” in the Book of Mormon is a ridiculous argument on your part. When Lehi left Jerusalem, the Pentateuch was referred to and was believed to be “the five books of Moses.” That poses absolutely no problem for the BOM.
Another by the way- the two scholars you link to lastly, Kikawada and Quinn, equate the Documentary Hypothesis to anti-semitism. So much for balanced, objective, and scholarly language and approach.
Also- in quoting LDS scholars who suggest that we should reconsider “buying into” source criticism, are you suggesting that only some evidence and only selective truth be considered? Is that the way you approach truth? I think that question was answered long ago. I believe all truth is good and to be upheld, wherever it comes from. And in my search for truth and weighing all those sources, modern revelation stands up quite well.
Finally, you ask, “can you appeal to any Mormon “Prophets” and “apostles” for answers to this?” Despite your claim to the contrary, the answer is yes. Ever heard of Joseph Smith? He said that various copyists, editors, and scribes had altered the original text of the ancient prophets in places. Ever heard of the Joseph Smith Translation? Why do you think that “translation” was generated? Ever heard of the Book of Moses? It was received, according to our belief, through revelations and represents a closer version of revelations received by the prophet Moses.
One last point- you really seem to dismiss this type of analysis of the Bible. Yet, what do you appeal to as evidence for an accurate New Testament? There have been tens of thousands of variations within the thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament. And what is the evangelical response to the claim that we don’t know precisely or with certainty what the text of the books of the New Testament said? In every case, there is an appeal to just this type of textual analysis. Yet now, you reject this type of scholarly effort because it hurts your paradigm on the nature of the Pentateuch.
Another very last point- I believe the Bible. But I believe it is a collection of sacred records handed down through time. None of this causes problems for my belief on the Bible. But it certainly does for your position.
FOF,
So your argument has narrowed to simply denying that Moses authored every thing in the Pentateuch? Is that really all you got? No one claims that Moses wrote every single word of the Pentateuch
check this out
quote:
So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated. And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days: so the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended. And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the LORD commanded Moses.
(Deu 34:5-9)
end quote:
It is obvious that Moses did not write these words. No one would deny it and no one would deny that the Author of the Pentateuch used sources. After all Moses was not there for the events in Genesis for example .
As far as a single author goes even the most radical of skeptics would acknowledge that some one person stands behind the gathering of that source materiel that gave us the first 5 books we find in our Bibles.
But all of that does not in any way mean that the theology of the documents evolved over time. Do you not see the difference?
It is a far far cry from granting the normal editing process we would find in any document and the sort of wild speculation found in the Documentary Hypothesis and related concepts. Can you really not understand this?
I asked for actual evidence for evolving theology because that was your original claim.
Do you have any or are you just trying to muddy the waters?
peace
Oh, FOF your mind is just on one setting, diversion. Who said that? YOU JUST DID. Here is your made up argument that you put in my mouth so you can argue “against” me. Is this ALL you can do? Of course it doesn’t REQUIRE it. It is a METHOD of determination. You are confused. I’m not conflating anything. But let’s see if you are right.
Huh? Where do you get these conclusions from? You know, one thing you CAN do, FOF, is quote me. Use something I (grindael) said to back up that I said it. You see, what you keep doing is SAYING that I said things that I didn’t say. I quote you. I show EXACTLY what you say. You do nothing of the kind. I never used the word “required” at all. That you can extrapolate what you did from what I wrote is mind boggling.
Now we get closer to what is bothering you, and of course, you do what you always do, take a small (very small) PART of my argument and make it a CENTRAL TENANT. That is not what it is. The debates about Source Analysis (each scholar has his own interpretation, with some agreeing with parts of others and vice-versa) are a by product of trying to figure out the OVERALL THEORY, that someone else besides Moses wrote the Pentateuch, or that a Redactor changed it, or that it came from older documents and was compiled together later from separate accounts. So, what is your point here? That I’ve confused what? Please tell me what I’ve gotten wrong IN MY OWN WORDS, because you are being totally incoherent. If your argument here is at all logical, then why did Clines say this,
Do you SEE what Clines does here? Do you SEE it at all? You obviously didn’t COMPREHEND what I wrote in my previous post about this. This sentence totally destroys your argument here…
How am I conflating the two issues FOF? I’m NOT. You are simply ranting and raving that I am.
There is a LOT of debate whether Moses personally wrote all of the Pentateuch. You just refuse to see it. And there is even more debate about how he could NOT have written it. These are the speculations that I speak of. Thing is, the source analysis that inspired the DH and other “refined” theories (which are all under the blanket term “source analysis” according to Clines) are just not ENOUGH to get this BEYOND all of them being only SPECULATIVE THEORIES. That is what you fail to grasp. It is INTERPRETED circumstantial “evidence” that doesn’t prove that there even is a dead body. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn’t make it TRUE.
When Orson Wells went on the radio in 1938 a whole lot of people thought that we were under attack by Martians. They had issued a disclaimer at the beginning of the program, but that wasn’t heard by a great many people. They thought this the truth. But it wasn’t. They interpreted it as such, but they were wrong. They didn’t have the whole picture. WE don’t have the whole picture behind the writing of the Pentateuch either.
Oh, FOF. It was an EXAMPLE of the criticisms of the DH. Don’t take him seriously at all. I don’t care if you do or don’t. It is obvious that you are so biased as to someone having a degree that you can’t understand the logic of an argument that doesn’t require one. And what “polemic statements?” You see, you constantly do this, just make blanket accusations without any shred of proof for them. Please give us a blow by blow, which you do with your pet theory, but don’t do for the criticism’s of it. But then, you have touted your own bias, so I shouldn’t expect you to be balanced.
And also, you might want to dwell on this. Do you understand what polemic means? The word is derived from the Greek πολεμικός (polemikos), meaning “warlike, hostile”, which comes from πόλεμος (polemos), “war”. (wiki) So how can all his statements be “polemic” and yet be given in a “decent manner” as you say they are? You really crack me up, dude.
Duh? Did you even read what I said? Obviously not. I said that Clines was a PROPONET of the theory. What is it with you? You continue to do this, make crap up that people did or didn’t say, or act like they are stupid. I know you think you are a high and mighty Doctor, but your arrogance is beyond belief. You PROVE nothing. You SHOW nothing. You CONVINCE no one, except yourself.
I think that this is just a narcissistic exercise for you, because everything you write centers around you. Get out and deign to talk to the “little people”. But you have one big fat problem, FOF. You are always wrong when you try to answer my objections to things you write. Always. I’m going to show you again that you are, but you are so full of yourself that you will run away and then come back and repeat it all over again, and simply compartmentalize your added defeat into the place where you lock them all away in your brain.
Oh FOF, didn’t you READ what I wrote more than once? Look up what “hegemonic position of the scholarly community” means. That is Clines’ view. You have just confirmed that. So what? There are still many, many scholars that disagree with the theory. And Clines recognizes that, and for him it was NOT a number’s game. You are being ignorant. See below.
Because it is the truth. And you confirmed it in your reply to me and with your denigration of James Rochford.
You gave this view in an earlier post,
Debate about what school of theology they worked? Are you kidding me? And No, not “almost all Biblical scholars”. Far from it. Did you not read what Cline said:
If it were as cut and dry as you make it, why would Clines even say this? A FEW pitiful Evangelical scholars are making such problems? Really? Holding up the crowning of the “new model”? This shows that YOU ARE WRONG, and have misinterpreted what Clines said. He even says that most people that support the DH HAVE NOT RESEARCHED THE ISSUES FOR THEMSELVES. What does that say about it, FOF? That many just accept it without really knowing the reasons why. And that is changing. That is why Clines says,
He’s not throwing it out, but he says that now, with all of the people who are researching this and studying it and RESISTING it, “makes it more problematic than was thought even a couple of decades ago.”
So again, FOF, you see what you WANT to see and ignore what is really there. This is massive ignorance brought on by self-proclaimed bias.
Yes, because Clines sees that it is a PROBLEMATIC theory that has yet even come close to being proven. And you led me right to the paper that slam dunks this. Thank you. Again, he uses this language because those that are proponents are SPECULATING about an unproven theory that hasn’t won over enough scholars to make a paradigm change.
“We are far from the invalidating of the old paradigm.” Yes, and let’s finish his thoughts here. He also wrote,
What is a “new paradigm”? A new model of something. And how do you get there? You see, you don’t understand Clines at all. The guy you call fair and balanced who says that this might only be accepted because all of its opponents die off! NOT because it has any real evidence to support it. He writes about paradigm change,
Are you getting this? According to Clines, “None of these depictions rings true for our current situation in Pentateuchal studies.” Hence, there can only BE speculation. He actually predicts this will possibly be the fate of the DH:
Why? because as he says, “For us, it seems as if the present state of uncertainty is fated to persist.”
So much for this being a fact. So much for you putting it in those parameters. And thanks for bringing that paper to my attention. It just destroyed your argument. But that is what happens when you cherry pick quotes. Thanks too, for providing a link. (NOT). That also, is typical of your approach.
Wow. This from the guy who said,
Do you even comprehend what you write? You have pigeon-holed yourself. There are only more refined SPECULATIONS, that do not change a thing. And the Documentary Hypotheses is simply a moniker for it all. You even used it that way! How hypocritical of you. Even the wiki page grasps this concept for it divides it into two catagories, BEFORE Wellhausen, and AFTER Wellhausen. Again, you are taking a small piece of the whole picture and trying to claim what? Who the hell knows? You are so incoherent and disjointed in your argument, and your grasp of the actual facts of what is and has transpired in relation to this is so bad, that I have once again made you look foolish.
You don’t get it? That speaks volumes about your comprehension skills. But then, why would you call something “convenient” that you say has nothing to do with your argument? Freudian slip perhaps? Yes a “convenient” discovery, that conveniently illustrates the ridiculousness of your argument, cooked up in advance by grindael. LOL.
Then why does Sidney Sperry (one among many) say that it does? Oops.
Perhaps you should research this more. Here is a clue for you. http://www.new-tzfat.com/publish/scholarly-papers/Anti-Semitism%20in%20Wellhausen.pdf It is not unbalanced if it is a criticism that has been postulated by others (as it has). They didn’t invent this out of thin air. They address it. That actually IS balance. This is simply a ploy by you to try and poison the well. A tactic that shows that you don’t really understand the whole issue, but are simply repeating something you picked up that appeals to you and using it for shock value to discredit two very good authors. As one reviewer of he book stated, “Kikawada and Quinn are not the first to point out the anti-Semitic character and motivation of the Higher Critical approach that arose in Germany in the middle of the 19th century. It is useful to see it coming from mainstream scholars outside Israel.”
Are you anti-Semetic, FOF? Is that why this bothers you?
You would put that spin on it. LOL. So I can’t quote Mormon scholars who disagree with it? YOU are the one suggesting believing “selective truth”. The fact that you haven’t adequately studied this issue, and know little about it proves this. And of course there is your frankly admitted bias. Here is FOF’s main tactic once again employed. Make up something and ATTRIBUTE it to the other person, then act all high and mighty to TRY and make yourself look better. But it only makes you look pathetic.
But this argument doesn’t work with Moses, genius, because your pet theory postulates that Moses had almost nothing to do with the Pentateuch. And if Jo Smith is SO right on, why did he leave the first five books of the Old Testament almost virtually intact and ATTRIBUTE IT ALL TO MOSES?
And which Moses of Jo Smith should we believe, the one who wrote the Book of Abraham or the one who wrote the Book of Moses, since they are entirely different accounts? This is an epic fail on your part, not thought through, but only given to try and score points. You must have felt really good writing it and felt that you had “one upped” me, but again, you made yourself look foolish.
I’m the one providing BOTH SIDES of the argument here. YOU are the one dismissing the criticisms of the DH. Man, your brain must be wired wrong. Who gave extensive quotes about the DH? I did. You didn’t. You just summarized, but quoted no one, until I forced you to.
Once again, you missed the point. You don’t get it. You never do. I have never said what I personally believe. In fact I said this:
Oh FOF, you try so hard. But if you would only sit back, read and COMPREHEND and let go of your admitted biases, you would be able to understand what people are talking about and what they are actually arguing. This seems like an impossible task for you. And you really don’t believe the Bible, because all you do is try to undermine it. Sad, really that you can dupe yourself like you do.
Did you get a chance to read that book that I recommended?
Once again, you have made a fool of yourself. How many times are you going to…. oh yeah..
Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
So, Faith of Fathers, what was your point in bringing about these different theories on the development of the Pentateuch? How does that relate to the 4th article of faith?
As far as I can tell, you brought it up to show it is normal for faiths to develop over time, so you should be allowed some adjustments along the way. You use this theory, as it appears it is ony a theory and you as a scientist know the ramifications of that label, to justify the changes in your faith. The theory, being a theory, has some questions behind it that suggest it may not be true. Even you have to admit that it might be true and it might now. However, your faith shows clear and indisputable evidence that it has in fact changed.
I don’t think your use of this argument is necessarilly irrational, but we can rationalize anything and still be wrong. To ensure we are right, we must be aware of where we stand and be open to new trains of thought. Though you accuse us of tunnel vision, your ignoring of facts staring us in the face demonstrates an amount of obstinance that precludes an open search for the truth. Those facts are, including but not limited to: an unproven and increasingly unpopular theory (even if still popular) and the historical truths behind your own faith.
@Faithoffathers
Textual criticism is simple. Jesus accepted the Old Testament as without corruption, we should. The early church fathers accepted the New Testament withouth corruption, so should we.
It’s good to question, think and analyze, but historically and textually, what they had then, we have now.