David Wright on Historical Criticism.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Actually, the Book of Mormon leaves the door open for polygamy. A stronger argument, though it isn't one I believe, would be that Joseph tested the water using the Book of Mormon, and used it as justification for later plural marriage. The Book of Mormon itself condemns unauthorized, or uninspired, plural marriage.

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things (Jacob 2:30).

http://scriptures.LDS.org/en/jacob/2/30#30

[_harmony]

Actually, the Book of Mormon leaves the door open for polygamy. A stronger argument, though it isn't one I believe, would be that Joseph tested the water using the Book of Mormon, and used it as justification for later plural marriage. The Book of Mormon itself condemns unauthorized, or uninspired, plural marriage.

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things (Jacob 2:30).

http://scriptures.LDS.org/en/jacob/2/30#30

Nothing in that verse implies polygamy. That it is interpreted to be such by our leaders is a matter of personal benefit (by Joseph and Brigham) and tradition (by every prophet since the Manifesto). No prophet is going to second guess Joseph on this, but the fact is, they're wrong. That verse does not give a green light to polygamy. On the contrary, it states quite clearly that if the Lord wants seed raised up to himself, he will command the people to raise up seed. Raising up seed does not equal polygamy.

[_Ray A]

Actually, the Book of Mormon leaves the door open for polygamy. A stronger argument, though it isn't one I believe, would be that Joseph tested the water using the Book of Mormon, and used it as justification for later plural marriage. The Book of Mormon itself condemns unauthorized, or uninspired, plural marriage.

The Book of Mormon does condemn unauthorised plural marriage. What it doesn't teach is that plural marriage is essential to exaltation, but is only used for "raising up seed". One can argue that Joseph's later revelations superceded the Book of Mormon, but this can be problematic too. There is also nothing about baptism for the dead in the Book of Mormon, though it is supposed to reach 421 AD, and teach against infant baptism in the later chapters, yet it excludes Baptism for the dead. Obviously Joseph's thought was progressive.

[_harmony]

Obviously Joseph's thought was progressive.

Which is another way of saying Joseph was making it up as he went along.

[_Ray A]

Which is another way of saying Joseph was making it up as he went along.

Not at all. While that's possible, he could also have been inspired, though in the case of polygamy I don't see much inspiration at all (and I think he even conceded this at one point), and I think the Church recognises that today since it has banned polygamy. Baptism for the dead is far more benign a doctrine, and useful, especially since it has motivated so much geneaological research. I have no hesitation in saying that was inspired.

[_Addictio]

I appreciate the comments above, all. And thanks for the link to Alibris, Ray. I picked up the Madsen book.

Also, I'd be interested to know if thread-readers know of any articles/books that address applying the historical-critical method to the Book of Mormon or other LDS scriptures. Besides Wright's articles, all I know about are Philip Barlow's book Mormons and the Bible and Kevin Barney's Dialogue article on acceptance of the Documentary Hypothesis by Mormon writers.

Any others?

I'd also be interested to hear from any Christians, Evangelical or otherwise, regarding authorship of the Penteteuch. Do you think Moses wrote it? How about the book of Genesis? If Moses wrote it, do you think he functioned as scribe while YHWH Elohim dictated it? Or did Moses author it by "divine inspiration," with or without the use of prior written sources?

It seems to me the Book of Moses is claiming that Moses authored the original creation stories through the time of Noah that are found in Genesis. In addition, the BofMoses purprts to "restore" the uncorrupted, original and more complete version of the creation-to-Noah account that Moses authored. (Notice that in the BofMoses account, he acts as scribe while God dictates the content; so as we'd expect, the voicing is first person, "I, God ..." not the third-person, anonymous narration we find in Genesis and the rest of the Penteteuch.)

So unlike the Bible's Primary History -- Genesis through Kings -- the BofMoses and the Book of Mormon don't keep mum about the issue of authorship; that is, they don't defer to some authoritative, extra-textual tradition to explain their own authorship. That's why the hist-critical method is from the get-go at odds with their express claims re their own time and place of authorship. The conclusions of the critical method don't just undermine some extra-canonical tradition about their authorship, as with Genesis-Kings. Instead, the critical-method conclusions are fundamentally at odds with and undermine the express, canonized claims of the texts themselves.

Seems to me Price doesn't acknowledge/address this fundamental difference.

Any thoughts, ye thread-readers?

[_Abinadi's Fire]

Also, I'd be interested to know if thread-readers know of any articles/books that address applying the historical-critical method to the Book of Mormon or other LDS scriptures. Besides Wright's articles, all I know about are Philip Barlow's book Mormons and the Bible and Kevin Barney's Dialogue article on acceptance of the Documentary Hypothesis by Mormon writers.

Any others?

I'd also be interested to hear from any Christians, Evangelical or otherwise, regarding authorship of the Penteteuch. Do you think Moses wrote it? How about the book of Genesis? If Moses wrote it, do you think he functioned as scribe while YHWH Elohim dictated it? Or did Moses author it by "divine inspiration," with or without the use of prior written sources?

I don't know of any historical-critical books with regard to the Book of Mormon, ones that attempt to identify the authors and time-frame, but think it is fascinating that the character Mormon within its pages serves the same sort of function as Ezra within the Documentary Hypothesis.

I think something like that would be very interesting, and think the concept has been applied by some already, though not a complete identification of each author. For instance, I remember reading something by Brent Lee Metcalfe which draws a correlation between Mormon and Joseph Smith Jr. Identifying who Alma is, for instance, would be the next logical step, in my opinion.

Personally I think the Documentary Hypothesis is a plausible explanation for the author of the Bible - in "Who Wrote the Bible," Richard Elliott Friedman makes an interesting analysis of authorship based on the two kingdoms, Josiah, and Jeremiah, among other points.

[_Ray A]

Also, I'd be interested to know if thread-readers know of any articles/books that address applying the historical-critical method to the Book of Mormon or other LDS scriptures. Besides Wright's articles, all I know about are Philip Barlow's book Mormons and the Bible and Kevin Barney's Dialogue article on acceptance of the Documentary Hypothesis by Mormon writers.

There isn't very much. This article by Massimo Introvigne is critical of aspects of the historical-critical method when used as a means of finding "objective truth". It was originally published in Journal of Book of Mormon Stidues, 1996. (For more information on CENSUR, of which Introveigne is director: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CESNUR

I'm only excerpting portions, again for those who don't want to read the whole article. Introvigne is another whose perspectives have been debated on FAIR, and his reference to Derrida brought some criticisms of post-modernism in various threads. More thought for consumption.

http://www.aliveonline.com/ldspapers/introvigne.htm

In contemporary Mormonism the main battle is not about the Bible. Although it would be wrong to conclude that Latter-day Saint scholars are uninformed or uninterested in non-Mormon biblical exegesis, what in other denominations is a battle for the Bible is in contemporary Mormonism a battle for the Book of Mormon. This battle is fought not around interpretation, but around the very nature of the Book of Mormon. Is it what it claims to be? Or is it merely a product of Joseph Smith's creative genius or religious imagination? (Those claiming that it is neither of the two, but a fraud, exclude themselves from the debate and join the ranks of mere anti-Mormonism.) While the debate is not identical with the Protestant battle for the Bible, ultimately the question is whether the Book of Mormon—not unlike the Bible in the Protestant controversy—is "true." Historians are more crucial to the Latter-day Saint debate than to the Protestant, for the obvious reasons that the Book of Mormon was first published in 1830 and the circumstances of its translation are more open to historical research. While the Church-approved Encyclopedia of Mormonism claims that "for most Latter-day Saints the primary purpose of scripture studies is not to prove to themselves the truth of scriptural records—which they already accept—but to gain wisdom and understanding about the teachings of these sacred writings,"14 in fact, the "truth" of the Book of Mormon may be defined in conflicting ways, and the battle for the Book of Mormon has largely become the battle for Latter-day Saint history. Accordingly, essays on Latter-day Saint historiography—such as those collected in Faithful History, published in 199215 —in fact concern the battle for the Book of Mormon not less than specific studies of Latter-day Saint scripture itself.

More crucial, in order to understand the peculiarities of the Mormon controversy, is that—unlike many Protestant modernists—Latter-day Saint liberals are persuaded that, thanks to Enlightenment rationalism, an objective concept of "science" and "truth" may allow them to reach factual, empirical, "scientific" conclusions on the Book of Mormon and its origins. Not surprisingly, the transition from a religious to this truly secularized perspective of history and knowledge has been described by David P. Wright as a "conversion experience." He has offered a typical conversion narrative of how he "grew up a traditional Mormon," in college "found that many of the traditional historical assumptions that [he] held did not make sense," and finally "by the end of [his] graduate education" came "to own the critical framework."23 On the other hand, the late modernist and postmodernist position that knowledge is by no means objective and that "true," universally valid historical conclusions could never be reached, is held by Latter-day Saint conservatives. One of the most articulate expositions of this point of view has been advanced by David Bohn, a professor of political science at Brigham Young University. Bohn—in a 1994 Sunstone article summing up his position—argues, quoting Jacques Derrida and other postmodernist luminaries, that historical conclusions are not "true" photographs of the reality but politically negotiated narratives. When liberal historians such as D. Michael Quinn use "professionalism as a defense," Bohn retorts that they do not seem "to understand that these methodological claims of professional historiography are precisely what are in question."24 It would do no good, Bohn insists, to retreat to a moderate position where objectivists may argue that "they are only trying to approximate neutrality and objectivity." No, "they miss the point altogether," because "neutrality and objectivity cannot even be approximated." Bohn denies that we could work "within some absolute universe"; we could only work "within agreed-upon universes whose boundaries and standards of measure are a product of history, defined by conventions which for one reason or another we decide to use."25

At this stage, an outside observer expecting conservative Latter-day Saints to adopt a fundamentalist view of truth, and liberal Latter-day Saints to adopt a postmodernist one, may easily claim that something should be wrong. The attitudes are in fact almost reversed. Historical truth is regarded as a mere social product by Latter-day Saint conservatives, while a rather naïve sociology of knowledge claiming that historical-critical methodologies may indeed achieve "truth" lies behind the liberals' attitude. The "love affair with Enlightenment science" of American fundamentalists described by Marsden does not find a counterpart among Latter-day Saint conservatives; conversely, Enlightenment's claim for certainty and objectivity is still defended in the liberal camp. It is not surprising that liberals accuse "Mormon apologists" almost of cheating.

Postmodernist defenses of Christianity, or Mormonism, may well remain of limited sociological relevance insofar as the average Church member is not even aware of problems with the "truth" that history or science may offer. Postmodernist approaches to the "truth" of religion, the Bible, or the Book of Mormon are not, however, anachronistic. Sociological inquiries tell us that even among professionals, such as computer operators and medical doctors, belief in witchcraft and magic is growing.41 Popular faith in science is decreasing and approaching, in countries like Italy, what is probably an all-time low.42 Postmodernity as a reaction to the Enlightenment paradigm is becoming more socially relevant. In this context Gadamer may not become a household name, but the possibility that science (including history) may produce "truth" safer than that produced by religion will be increasingly questioned. And, if the socialization of the postmodern paradigm advances, conservatives will enjoy a tactical advantage over liberals in future stages of the battle for the Book of Mormon.

The first approach examined by the document is the historical-critical method that studies "the historical processes which gave rise to biblical texts," by comparing manuscripts, submitting texts to linguistic and semantic analysis, using the knowledge derived from historical philology, considering the literary genres and the personality of the biblical writers involved. According to the Commission, if we want a "proper understanding" of the Bible, the historical-critical method is "indispensable." On the other hand, Christians could not ignore that scholars using the historical-critical method are consciously or unconsciously socialized into a tradition dominated by rationalism and secularism. This tradition has often been reductionist: trying to reduce the biblical text to its context. Although the historical-critical method remains somewhat necessary, the Catholic scholar should correct the reductionist trends of its tradition "through the application of a more diversified semantics."51 These comments seem to be relevant for the discussion on the Book of Mormon. Some liberal Latter-day Saint scholars have insisted on the application of the historical-critical method as the only method of legitimate "scientific" interpretation.52 When applied to the Book of Mormon, the historical-critical method normally means that the activities of Joseph Smith connected with the translation and publication of the text should be considered, usually within the context of his time. Some liberal Latter-day Saints, as we mentioned earlier, describe their "conversion" to the historical-critical method as a tranforming experience and seem to believe that it is the only method accepted today by the scholarly community. As the Catholic document of 1993 emphasizes, this is not the case. When dealing with the Book of Mormon we could perhaps agree that the use of a historical-critical method is not less "indispensable" than when dealing with the Bible. The circumstances connected with its translation and publication are not irrelevant, but very relevant, and historians have a very legitimate task to perform. On the other hand, Latter-day Saint scholars could not ignore the agenda of most historical-critical scholars with its rationalistic and secularist prejudices. In order not to become a victim of these prejudices, the best thing Latter-day Saint scholars can do is not to regard the historical-critical method as "the" final and "true" method to approach the Book of Mormon. This method could, however, be extremely useful, particularly when its results are not taken uncritically at face value but are submitted to the examination of an appropriate sociology of knowledge, capable of dealing with them in light of their methodological presuppositions.

While fundamentalism as a method is not acceptable, it is not unacceptable to look in the scriptures to abstract from them some nonnegotiable "fundamentals" and defend them vigorously against any secularizing attempt. This approach may rightly define the traditional mainline Latter-day Saint position toward the Book of Mormon.59 As we mentioned earlier, fundamentalism in the technical sense of the term is foreign to Latter-day Saint culture, but nonnegotiable "fundamentals" are clearly defended by the Latter-day Saint hierarchy (as by any other Christian hierarchy, except the very liberal ones in contemporary Protestantism). On the other hand, what Armand Mauss has called "folk fundamentalism," influenced by Protestant fundamentalism, is growing at the grassroots level in the Latter-day Saint Church, and may import into contemporary popular Mormonism elements foreign to its own history and tradition.60

First, it could show that it is naïve to claim that the historical-critical method is the only method acceptable to approach the text of a sacred scripture. Exegesis in the contemporary, scholarly sense of the word is larger than the historical-critical method, and also includes other methods (literary analysis, approaches based on tradition and community, studies based on the human sciences, contextual approaches both liberationist and feminist) which could work to some extent independently from historical criticism. It is also useful to remember that the historical-critical method is often packaged with all the elements of a secularizing tradition inherently hostile to religion and the supernatural. It would seem that at the exegetical level a better understanding of the Book of Mormon could take advantage of studies based on approaches other than the historical-critical method, where the problems of the historical criticism may be temporarily set aside. Each method, of course, should be in turn considered, taking into account its own inherent limitations and the agenda of those who propose it in the scholarly community. This seems to be particularly true for psychological, psychoanalytical, and feminist interpretations. Fundamentalism, in turn, is equally foreign to the Roman Catholic and Latter-day Saint traditions, but there is one point where its message deserves to be heard, when it insists that some "fundamentals" should remain nonnegotiable by scholars if a church should avoid the risk of collapsing altogether.