Shulem wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 3:19 am
MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:57 pm
Even though, yes, others around Joseph may have believed these projects that Joseph was involved with to be authoritative scripture. John Taylor did for sure. But Brigham Young, not so much apparently.
You seem to suggest that John Taylor believed the Pearl of Great Price more than Brigham Young simply because he was the one to canonize it. But that’s not entirely fair, MG. It wasn’t Brigham Young or John Taylor that ordered the work to be canonized, IT WAS THE LORD! He is at the helm of the Church and it is by his voice the word of God is given to the Church. It could be argued that the Spirit moved John Taylor to canonize the Pearl of Great Price by the will of God and everything is done according to his timeframe.
Right?
Sure, one can argue that everything that happens in a church that claims direct revelation from God is God driven. But I think that is unrealistic to expect. People are people and many times they’re going to do what they want to do, not necessarily what God wants them to do. The problem is that many times religious adherents are like sheep and they’re willing to do whatever an ecclesiastical leader tells them to do. No questions asked. If John Taylor, with his experience having published the serialization of the Book of Abraham and seeing it as literal scripture, brings it to the congregation for canonization…do you really think the folks sitting in that meeting are going to do a thumbs down?
And yes, Brigham Young taught doctrines that find their origin, at least in LDS theology, in the Book of Abraham. But the question is still before us, why didn’t he canonize it? Wasn’t he as inspired as John Taylor? Wouldn’t the time have been just as right for canonization with Brigham at the reins as it was when Pres. Taylor took hold of the same? The idea which you propose that God is necessarily running the show at every twist and turn doesn’t seem to be what we see throughout history, including the restoration. I think canonization of the Book of Abraham and the PofGP could move forward as an ecclesiastical decision. Similar to what we see today as policy decisions.
Terms such as midrashic composition and scriptural exegesis in the days of Joseph Smith would have been seen as inspired and revelatory. Joseph himself would have seen it as such I would think. And I think the Lord works through that means to expound/present doctrine at times. I don’t think there is a one size fits all as you seem to suggest.
A common theme in your posts seems to be that the Lord is, or should be, 100% in charge/responsible for everything that goes on in the church. Correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t believe that to be the case. This seems to be an issue that continually crops up time to time from the critics. Anything claiming to have God’s handprints on it needs to be pristinely perfect. I think that is an unreasonable assumption to make in a world of independent free thinking beings.
At the end of the day what I’m proposing is that canonization of the Book of Abraham doesn’t dictate pristinely perfect and authoritative scripture. One way or the other, the weaknesses of men are going to be rather evident. Joseph’s midrashic composition and scriptural exegesis are naturally going to show up. Even so far as misrepresenting the literal interpretation of facsimilies and supplanting them with his own inspired composition with doctrinal content. That’s a difficult pill to swallow for strict 21st century literalists traveling back to the 19th century.
I’ve consolidated some of my comments to the last few posts you’ve made into a short one post response.
I’m enjoying the dialogue.
Regards,
MG