DCP's Joseph Smith?????s Doctrines and Early Christianity

[_Daniel Peterson]

I was unaware of this. Does anyone (Dr. Peterson?) have a source/names? Or at this stage, is this mostly anecdotal?

By design (in order to heighten the presumed pandering ludicrousness of my remarks) or because she genuinely misunderstood me, Trinity somewhat inflated my claim on this point.

I had in mind -- and cited -- one specific piece on that topic: Heikki Räisänen, "Joseph Smith und die Bibel: Die Leistung des mormonischen Propheten in neuer Beleuchtung," Theologische Literaturzeitung 109/2 (Feb. 1984): 81-92.

[_Trinity]

That's it. That's my entire comment.

Trinity got some things right. Trinity got some things wrong. Trinity misheard some things. Trinity misunderstood my intention at some points. Trinity plainly doesn't know the background to what I said. Trinity seems disposed to try to dispute what I said, but isn't really equipped to do so (and probably nobody here is).

I don't care enough to wade into what I know would be an interminable discussion, and most likely a fruitless one.

I did not go into the class with the intent to attack. I went in with the intent to learn. My comments are my own personal observations, so I am not expecting rebuttal.

But there was nothing wrong with the microphone. So I did not mishear anything. And I took the entire lecture down in shorthand, so have documented context of all statements made.

Which reminds me. Dr. Peterson, if you are going to take the time to go through Stendahl's rules of religious understanding, you probably ought not then turn around and cast aspersions on the catholic church like you did. (and no, it was not a funny joke)

I am glad that you have posted this, however.........."but isn't really equipped to do so (and probably nobody here is)" because it is perfectly reflective of the arrogance I perceived by the presentation. Are you too, DCP, tapped into the divine, ancient truths like Joseph Smith was? How very disappointing it must be for you to be surrounded by all of us average joes, both LDS and nonLDS, who are not bathed in as much light and knowledge as you when it comes to your perception of spiritual truths.

You not only mentioned the seams in the JST, you elaborated in several full sentences after the initial mention. I did not inflate any claim.

[_Doctor Steuss]

I was unaware of this. Does anyone (Dr. Peterson?) have a source/names? Or at this stage, is this mostly anecdotal?

By design (in order to heighten the presumed pandering ludicrousness of my remarks) or because she genuinely misunderstood me, Trinity somewhat inflated my claim on this point.

I had in mind -- and cited -- one specific piece on that topic: Heikki Räisänen, "Joseph Smith und die Bibel: Die Leistung des mormonischen Propheten in neuer Beleuchtung," Theologische Literaturzeitung 109/2 (Feb. 1984): 81-92.

For those with limited intellects (such as myself -- it hurt my brain just reading the author's name), is there perhaps an English translation of this floating around out there? If not, would you mind giving a brief overview of the paper (if you have time)?

Thanks,
Stu

[_personage]

After seeing how DCP responded I had to go back and read the original post to try and find the hostility. There is no hostility in the post.
Thank you for sharing this Trinity. I found it very interesting. I also think the respnse from DCP was very revealing.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I had in mind -- and cited -- one specific piece on that topic: Heikki Räisänen, "Joseph Smith und die Bibel: Die Leistung des mormonischen Propheten in neuer Beleuchtung," Theologische Literaturzeitung 109/2 (Feb. 1984): 81-92.

For those with limited intellects (such as myself -- it hurt my brain just reading the author's name), is there perhaps an English translation of this floating around out there? If not, would you mind giving a brief overview of the paper (if you have time)?

It's been roughly twenty-three years since I last read the article -- for which, so far as I'm aware, there is no English translation -- but this is what I remember: In looking at the JST, Professor Räisänen was struck by the fact that Joseph Smith noticed "problems" in the text of the Bible -- as I recall, Räisänen concentrated mostly on the Old Testament portions of the JST -- where, a generation or two later (with the emergence of Julius Wellhausen's "documentary hypothesis"), scholars would begin to identify "seams" or awkward "joints," presumably where two or more disparate source documents had been pieced together to create the extant biblical text. Räisänen did not agree with Joseph's proposed "solutions" to these "problems," but he was struck by the fact that, at least as he saw it, Joseph was noticing problem areas that would only later become important to German and then, subsequently, other scholarly specialists. That is why he gave his article the title, roughly translated, of "Joseph Smith and the Bible: New Light on the Achievement of the Mormon Prophet."

I believe that this is essentially what I said on Friday.

[_Sethbag]

To some degree, since Joseph Smith was setting himself up as a restorer of truths that mainstream Christianity had supposedly lost, he gave himself license to look at the Bible and find faults in it, and then "restore" what ought to have been there. This is in contrast to other Christian religionists, who had hitherto seen their role as interpreting what was actually in the Bible, not to correct it. In this light, given that some faults appear in the Bible, I don't know that it means all that much that Joseph identified some problem areas in the Bible. He was looking for them (as others hadn't been), they were there, so he found them. I don't think that this reflects one whit on whether he was in fact a true prophet of God.

What's more interesting, IMHO, is what Joseph did with the faults he found, and it is there where it's not apparent that there's 3rd party confirmation of any particular achievement of Joseph Smith's.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Professor Räisänen was impressed. You're not.

I'll try to remember that.

[_guy sajer]

Professor Räisänen was impressed. You're not.

I'll try to remember that.

Note the not-so-veiled insult.

Ooh, Sethbag, you've been owned.

As the good Prof P. points out, how can little ol' you dare to reach a different conclusion than Prof Raisanen? Don't you know your place in the natural order of things.

Turn about's fair play.

From now on, when ever Prof P. or one of his fellow FARMSistas make any claim viz the Book of Abraham, we simply say, "Professor Rinter was not impressed, you are. I'll try to remember that."

Or viz the Book of Mormon,

"Professor Coe was not impressed, you are. I'll try to remember that."

[_Daniel Peterson]

Fine with me. (It's not as if I really care.)

Of course, Professor Räisänen actually produced evidence and analysis. I tend to be more easily impressed by evidence and analysis than by bare assertions.

I'm peculiar that way.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I tend to be more easily impressed by evidence and analysis than by bare assertions.

I'm peculiar that way.

Oh lord.....too easy.