Kevin_Christensen

Members
  • Posts

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Kevin_Christensen's Achievements

  1. Regarding the key verse: D&C 1: 30 "And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundations of this church and bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking of the church collectively and not individually -- For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance....." Much of the conversation seems to me to proceed from the assumption that this statement is a florid and emphatic way of expressing something that could be said in three words: "only true church." Yet the key phrase has 30 words. Do the extra words actually have meaningful content? I think so. Take the phrase "only true church." Break it down. Only - exclusive true - correct, perfect, ideal church - body of doctrines. Such a view is particularly good at generating anomalies for believers and offense among skeptics because the expectations are so brittle, and static. Anything not exclusive, anything that seems not correct at the moment, that falls short of perfection, that fails to meet the ideal of choice. Any change, or perceived change to what should be static, perfect, ideal. When it works it is good for generating zeal, like Hoffer's True Believer. And Hoffer explained that no mass movement ever succeeded without such believers, because only such people en mass, can make the necessary sacrifices. When "only true" mode breaks down, it is good for generating anomaly and indignation. The problem is that D&C 1 not only fails to provide this handy three word phrase, but expressly rules out this reading. It says that while God has spoken to Joseph Smith, he has also spoken with unspecified "others" and that he is no "respecter of persons" and willing to make these things known to "all flesh." We should not expect exclusiveness, but a relative "well pleasingness." D&C 1 bluntly states of LDS leadership that "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest; inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed." It bluntly says that what is "well pleasing" about the collective does not bestow any special virtues on members except opportunity and accountability. How much plainer does it have to be? How much more conspicuous than in the First Section of the D&C, the revelation that formally explains to us what we should expect? And the Greek word behind "church" means "assembly or gathering. It not a static body of doctrines, or a perfect hierarchy we invited to join with, but a bunch of people of all sorts. I'm not baptised into a static body of doctrines, a big unchanging book of What to Think, but a living community of people. The way I parse the sentence the "only" is modified by "with which I, the Lord, am well pleased." That distinction of relative pleasure has to do with what "true and living" means in reference to the church. That, is what the "true and living" designation ought to lead us to look for in the LDS church. Around 1992, I was led to contextualize "true and living" in comparison to Biblical usage in passages about "true vine," "living waters," "living bread", 'the truth and the life," "tree of life," "the true God, the living God" (from a voice of warning passage in Jeremiah 10:10). What I noticed back then was that such Biblical passages mirror the themes of D&C 1 point for point, and verse for verse. For instance, the single Biblical use of "true" and "living" in Jer. 10:10 occurs in a voice of warning passage akin to the opening verses of D&C 1. And verse D&C 1:15: "For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;" The Biblical passages about living bread, living waters, and the tree of life are all tied to the ordinances of the sacrament, baptism, the temple, and these in turn, to the everlasting covenant. Verse 17: Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments; This shares themes with the passages about the calling of the apostles in John 15-17 that start by discussing the true vine: John 15:1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman" Visualizing a menorah, a tree of life, shows the relation of the branches to the center vine, the dependence of the apostles on the Lord as the source of their authority, information, and strength, and also evokes the temple and ongoing revelation. D&C 1 demonstrates the same ideas as the Lord explains why he has called Joseph Smith, and what he expects him to do. More recently, I noticed this "living" in Hebrews 10:20 Having therefore, brethren, aboldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; 21 And having an high priest over the house of God; The living way has associations with the atonement, temple rites, and priesthood. In my reading "true and living" serve as a merism, expressing as succinctly as possible the associated themes from these kinds of Bible passages, which also mirror point for point, verse for verse the themes of D&C 1. I think that convergence of themes around "true and living" imagery is deliberate, inspired, and to me, inspiring. To me, at least, D&C 1:30 expresses a different concept than the popular "only true church" idea. It does not waste its 30 words in expressing that meaning, a meaning that is far more tolerant and robust. That is, it makes no claim to exclusive truth, virtue or revelation. (Indeed, D&C 1 expressly refutes such notions.) It expressly says that LDS leaders can error, and that such errors will be made manifest. It does, however express clearly that the world has strayed from the ordinances and covenants. And these, Joseph Smith claims to have restored. I do take the restoration seriously (see D&C 1:17-30). I evaluate the church according to the actual claims made in D&C 1, not against the claims made in popular LDS discourse. My perspective, FWIW. Kevin Christensen Pittsburgh, PA
  2. A range of LDS attitudes to the DH exist. The most comprehensive treatment by an LDS scholar is Kevin Barney's Reflections on the Documentary Hypothesis, which was originally published in Dialogue, and can now be found online. Barney surveys the range of LDS discussion up to that point in time, showing a spectrum, and then gives his own interesting take. It's essential reading. One of the best and most important things Barney has done. Previous LDS highlights include John Sorenson's "The Brass Plates and Biblical Scholarship" essay noting that the Book of Mormon shows characteristics of the "E" source of the DH. Such observations were re-enforced by Steve St. Clair's interesting paper (no longer online, alas) comparing the Book of Mormon to the Northern Kingdom Traditions. I believe it was Gordon Thomasson who wrote a paper arguing that the Book of Abraham shows characteristics of an J source. (This was in the original Nibley Festschrift, and can be found in the BYU Library.) Also, of note, is Noel Reynolds essay in By Study and By Faith, arguing that the Book of Mormon presupposes something like the Book of Moses, rather then the Masoretic Hebrew Genesis. We certainly should not suppose that the current Hebrew MT exactly resembles what Nephi knew from the Brass plates. Potter's essay is interesting, though Barney's approach is much more detailed. This spring should see the FARMS publication of Ben McGuire's FAIR essay, showing that the allusions to the David story in the account of Nephi and Laban all point to single side of the two spliced sources in the current Hebrew. Eventually, Ben McGuire will publish his studies that indicate that the Book of Mormon exclusively uses a "proto-Deuteronomy," rather than the version in the much later Hebrew MT. Plus, in addition to the 1998 volume on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, and comments I made in my 2002 Occasional Paper chapter on Isaiah, linked earlier in this thread, I noticed that Margaret Barker subsequently produced an essay showing that Isaiah 53 seems to be based on Hezekiah's bout with the plague, which would make that particular chapter available for the Brass Plates. On her website, see "The Original Context of the Fourth Servant Song." LDS writers have tended to be conservative in their approach, more so actually than our own scriptures, which do describe both layers of editing and generations of editors in scriptures, some inspired, and some not. Nibley started pointing much of this out in his discussion of Isaiah in Since Cumorah. Other's have made other studies since. Kevin Christensen Pittsburgh, PA