Kevin Graham wrote:Incidentally, there is a great discussion in the Nephi and his Asherah thread.
Check out Robert Crockett taking LDS scholars to task over that issue.
I always find it interesting to watch Mormons argue about which layer of the biblical text should be authoritative. For evangelicals, even the recognition that there are layers would be grounds for loss of faith.
And I have to say that I think the evangelical attitude makes a lot more sense. The whole idea of a "canon" of textual authorities is silly from the get-go, but how can it even be tenable once you accept that those textual authorites are rife with contradictions and competing human agendas?
Back in the Middle Ages, the Bible was just one of many texts that was treated as an "authority" to be accepted unquestioningly. The canon also included classical writers such as Aristotle and Euclid. It was revolutionary when a version of Euclid's text was discovered that included his "proofs" of his formulae. It revealed that Euclid was not a prophet, but a mere man engaging in problem-solving and showing his work. Gradually, humanists in the later Middle Ages discovered that the classical canon was full of forgeries, errors, and agendas. They moved incrementally toward the view that classical arguments should be accepted on their merits, not their authority. Somehow, though, scripture has escaped this humanistic sifting process. Modern American Christians are still medieval in their views of scripture.
