Does the restoration include corrupted text?

[drumdude]

Dan McClellan, whose output puts Interpreter’s slop to shame, just released a video with evidence that David did not kill Goliath.

https://youtu.be/fEBPkavnLGE

As a general article of faith, Mormons believe that their religion is necessary to correct corruptions to the truth. How then do Mormons integrate scholarship like this?

From a Mopologist standpoint, they’re only interested in the bullseyes that Joseph got right. But what about these areas where every prophet has been completely ignorant to this corrupted text? The church archives are replete with talks about David and Goliath and how it applies to our daily lives.

Do you think Mormonism should simply ignore this corruption and claim that the editor who corrupted the text was inspired to create a noble lie for the greater good? Why couldn’t the Catholic Church then still be the one true church, if truth is so relative?

[huckelberry]

Drumdude, I am sure different people are going to see this problem differently. Growing up I thought that the truth of the Gospel was getting the connection and knowledge of God, spiritual principles, authority, and necessary ordinances correct. I do not recall expecting correction of historical details bungled in scripture. But the idea of scripture inerrancy is widespread in America and certainly exists with some Mormons as well as with the Protestant fundamentalists who are so locked onto the idea. I do not remember ever believing inerrancy and I do not remember it taught in the Mormon church. (Am I forgetting pieces? Have things changed?)

I do not know what text would have been corrupted. What we have is a compilation of stories and information, not all of which fits together as Dan well explained.

I am not quite sure what you mean by some thinking truth relative. Could be a point of discussion. I do not think truth is relative. I do think the Goliath story is a bit folklorish and the complete truth of the matter is outside of our knowledge.

[drumdude]

Drumdude, I am sure different people are going to see this problem differently. Growing up I thought that the truth of the Gospel was getting the connection and knowledge of God, spiritual principles, authority, and necessary ordinances correct. I do not recall expecting correction of historical details bungled in scripture. But the idea of scripture inerrancy is widespread in America and certainly exists with some Mormons as well as with the Protestant fundamentalists who are so locked onto the idea. I do not remember ever believing inerrancy and I do not remember it taught in the Mormon church. (Am I forgetting pieces? Have things changed?)

I do not know what text would have been corrupted. What we have is a compilation of stories and information, not all of which fits together as Dan well explained.

I am not quite sure what you mean by some thinking truth relative. Could be a point of discussion. I do not think truth is relative. I do think the Goliath story is a bit folklorish and the complete truth of the matter is outside of our knowledge.

Dan explains in the video that the evidence points to someone changing the original text, or in his words, corrupting it. This was done in order to harmonize it with the conflicting story.

Joseph Smith was well aware that these corruptions existed, and embarked on his translation process to restore the scriptures to their original version. That seems to be an integral part of the restoration movement, the act of restoring.

It seems to me Mormons should embrace this scholarly evidence, if they still claim to be a restorationist movement. Or perhaps restoration doesn’t really mean that anymore, and has instead been superseded to mean “whatever the current prophet dictates.”

[Gadianton]

Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is ancient history while the Mopologists believe it's an ancient text. As you point out, ancient texts were changed as needed to meet the then-present political needs. So the fact that the Book of Mormon is brimming with made up falsehoods is evidence that it's an ancient text. Internet Mormonism has thrown out the window the idea that anything is being restored in any way that you grew up believing in the church.

[huckelberry]

Drumdude, I am sure different people are going to see this problem differently. Growing up I thought that the truth of the Gospel was getting the connection and knowledge of God, spiritual principles, authority, and necessary ordinances correct. I do not recall expecting correction of historical details bungled in scripture. But the idea of scripture inerrancy is widespread in America and certainly exists with some Mormons as well as with the Protestant fundamentalists who are so locked onto the idea. I do not remember ever believing inerrancy and I do not remember it taught in the Mormon church. (Am I forgetting pieces? Have things changed?)

I do not know what text would have been corrupted. What we have is a compilation of stories and information, not all of which fits together as Dan well explained.

I am not quite sure what you mean by some thinking truth relative. Could be a point of discussion. I do not think truth is relative. I do think the Goliath story is a bit folklorish and the complete truth of the matter is outside of our knowledge.

Dan explains in the video that the evidence points to someone changing the original text, or in his words, corrupting it. This was done in order to harmonize it with the conflicting story.

Joseph Smith was well aware that these corruptions existed, and embarked on his translation process to restore the scriptures to their original version. That seems to be an integral part of the restoration movement, the act of restoring.

It seems to me Mormons should embrace this scholarly evidence, if they still claim to be a restorationist movement. Or perhaps restoration doesn’t really mean that anymore, and has instead been superseded to mean “whatever the current prophet dictates.”

Drumdude, I listened to two presentations by Dan on this. I thought he focused upon the fact that Samuel has multiple stories that do not really fit together. Dan focuses upon the observation that the Bible does not speak with just one point of view. I take that to imply that restoring original versions would leave the puzzle and errors in place. The idea of corruption was about how the Chronicler treated the problem. It is not certain if that author arbitrarily created his solution to who killed Goliath, presented what he thought was the correct version, or had his statement altered (corrupted) by later scribes.

Dan makes the observation that the authors appear to be adorning David to emphasize his role and importance. How do we see behind that? I am unsure what a restorationist movement can make of that. On the other hand it is possible a more mature approach to scripture may recogonize the role fiction plays and try to understand accordingly. I hope not to be climbing onto Gadianton's presentation of apologetic use of the problem. I think he made a parody.

Just thinking of Mormon expectations I remember the idea that more scripture was to be revealed at some future time according to God’s wish. I do not think most Mormons think there is a rush for that to happen.