CaliforniaKid wrote:The odd thing about Joseph Smith is that while history and the sacred texts were judged by him to be malleable-- changeable in order to fit his needs-- he certainly doesn't teach that. And when he makes changes to the revelations (except in the case of "restoring" the Bible, of course), he does so only in minor, subtle ways. For major revisions he simply wrote the new view into the writings of an earlier patriarch. We can see this in his changing understanding of the creation. Anthony Hutchinson explored this in a magnificent Dialogue article about 20 years ago. Moses, Abraham, and the temple ceremony all represent three very distinct stages in Joseph Smith's understanding of creation. If he was really promoting a "fluid" view of text, he would have simply continued to revise the same document to accord with his latest understanding. But he doesn't do that. The changes to the Book of Mormon and Book of Commandments are made for PR purposes, to smooth over glaring deficiencies in a subtle enough way that nobody would notice. The real fluidity of Joseph Smith's doctrine, however, shows up in new revelations rather than in changes to the old ones. Joseph merely provides us reasons to privilege the new text over the old one-- for example, the patriarch Abraham is more remote than Moses.
I think this is an accurate assessment and describes the difference between a notion that textuality itself is fluid vs. the notion that spiritual beliefs and sacred texts are malleable and/or continually "progressing." Which is why I think that ultimately it is inaccurate to characterize Joseph Smith as "postmodern" in any sense. At the same time, I would not want to downplay his eccentric and ambitious creativity.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
"Ironically, quasi-canonical attempts to provide official interpretations to the scriptures, such as the Bible Dictionary and Guide to the Scriptures, seem almost counter to Joseph's approach. Similarly, it could be said that the correlation process, in place since 1970, is an attempt to fix boundaries on a canon that really has no boundaries..."
which is why I would also say that their most certainly is a fundamentalist strain in mainstream Mormonism. Didn't we all learn that the gospel was once and for all restored (if its not broken why fix/change it?) and that the truth of it never changes? When I was growing up that was emphasized over and over even though there were plenty of changes in evidence even then. The only place I've run across the explanation that "of course there are changes" and "of course it hasn't changed in essence, but it has changed according to dipensation/historical period/whatever" in recently amont "internet Mormons." The fauxstmodern apologetic is very, very new.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
I would agree that the Bible Dictionary and the extensive references can lead to laziness.
I don't think Joseph's view of Scripture was ever gone though. The idea of rigid doctrine was never taught to me by my parents. I only got a smattering of it from some of my teachers in the Church. The best did not.
I now think the Church is an essential structure for the beginning of understanding but it is a stepladder at best. I don't say this to demean it, I only want to put it where it belongs. The real gospel is found in communion with God not with manuals, meetings, or even the Scriptures and Prophets. They are aids only and if relied upon solely destroy people.
The best teacher I ever had in the Church told me that you know that God is using you the right way when a student walks up and thanks you for teaching them something you never mentioned in the whole lesson, proof positive that God took tidbits of what you said and gave someone what they needed and not what you were talking about. The Scriptures are designed for the same process.
Joseph taught that to achieve exaltation there is an individual path for each person. The only way to find that path is by direct communion with God and relentless application of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. I worry for people who constantly need the Bishop's help or become rigid and dogmatic with doctrine. They are unteachable and are in the real sense of the word damned.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:..The only way to find that path is by direct communion with God and relentless application of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. I worry for people who constantly need the Bishop's help or become rigid and dogmatic with doctrine. They are unteachable and are in the real sense of the word damned.
That is a very thought provoking statement, Nehor. Thanks for that perspective.
The Nehor wrote:I would agree that the Bible Dictionary and the extensive references can lead to laziness.
I don't think Joseph's view of Scripture was ever gone though. The idea of rigid doctrine was never taught to me by my parents. I only got a smattering of it from some of my teachers in the Church. The best did not.
I now think the Church is an essential structure for the beginning of understanding but it is a stepladder at best. I don't say this to demean it, I only want to put it where it belongs. The real gospel is found in communion with God not with manuals, meetings, or even the Scriptures and Prophets. They are aids only and if relied upon solely destroy people.
The best teacher I ever had in the Church told me that you know that God is using you the right way when a student walks up and thanks you for teaching them something you never mentioned in the whole lesson, proof positive that God took tidbits of what you said and gave someone what they needed and not what you were talking about. The Scriptures are designed for the same process.
Joseph taught that to achieve exaltation there is an individual path for each person. The only way to find that path is by direct communion with God and relentless application of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. I worry for people who constantly need the Bishop's help or become rigid and dogmatic with doctrine. They are unteachable and are in the real sense of the word damned.
Very well said. In essence, you are arguing what I said in my little post: Joseph Smith taught the primacy of the spirit, that a relationship with deity trumped the scriptures and even the prophets. And that is a radical departure from orthodoxy.
Of course, the danger here is when we figure out we don't really need Joseph or his church.
Very well said. In essence, you are arguing what I said in my little post: Joseph Smith taught the primacy of the spirit, that a relationship with deity trumped the scriptures and even the prophets. And that is a radical departure from orthodoxy.
Of course, the danger here is when we figure out we don't really need Joseph or his church.
Well, this brings up the evolution Joseph Smith went through, because he eventually realized that danger and began reigning in his followers. He did NOT continue to teach that spirit trumped even the prophet - when his position was threatened, he changed that teaching and taught that there could only be ONE prophet who had the right to receive revelation for ALL. (I believe that occurred after the incident with the young lady receiving visions who was gaining popularity, although I can't recall her name right now)
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.