Book review, and making doctrine fit
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:12 am
I'm plowing through "This is my doctrine: The development of Mormon Theology (part 1)". Its heavy reading and has sections that, speaking for myself, just drag. But I am seeing a kindof thread.
I've heard others talk about the difference between science and theology. In science, the data is gathered and from that data, a conclusion is drawn that best fits the data--always subject to revision if the data grows and leads to changes. In theology, the conclusion is resolved upon first, and the data is interpreted in such a way to support that conclusion.
An example: DNA science now suggests strongly that the American Indian came from people who migrated over the land bridge and are primarily of Mongolian ancestry. (Did I get that right?). The LDS perspective is that the Nephite and Lamanite groups came from Hebrew ancestry. The DNA doesn't support that, so the LDS church creates interpretations for the data that manipulate the narrative in such a way to keep it consistent.
Well, this book I am reading really does have this latter thread shining through. I'm reading about the priesthood restoration, and about the timing involved in how it was first introduced years after the events were supposed to have happened. Also, the entire Elias discussion, and how JS changed the wording of the scriptures. According to the book, the wording "turn the hearts of... " was supposed to be read "seal the hearts of...". But prior to this change, JS had already declared Malachi as correct, and the exact same wording is in the BofM. There were no changes.
Now all of the sudden a change? This is a SIGNIFICANT CHANGE....and considering the BofM was the most correct of any book on earth?
Hunh?
The data, IMHO, supports the conclusion some suggest that JS was having problems dealing with apostasy, and had to continue to give new doctrines to keep people in line. So, revelations were edited and pre-dated, etc. Because the church concludes JS was a prophet, they make the data fit their preconceptions.
I will never EVER be able to go back to this way of thinking, coming to the conclusion first and making the data fit it.
Any other ways the data is made to fit the preconceptions people care to share?
I've heard others talk about the difference between science and theology. In science, the data is gathered and from that data, a conclusion is drawn that best fits the data--always subject to revision if the data grows and leads to changes. In theology, the conclusion is resolved upon first, and the data is interpreted in such a way to support that conclusion.
An example: DNA science now suggests strongly that the American Indian came from people who migrated over the land bridge and are primarily of Mongolian ancestry. (Did I get that right?). The LDS perspective is that the Nephite and Lamanite groups came from Hebrew ancestry. The DNA doesn't support that, so the LDS church creates interpretations for the data that manipulate the narrative in such a way to keep it consistent.
Well, this book I am reading really does have this latter thread shining through. I'm reading about the priesthood restoration, and about the timing involved in how it was first introduced years after the events were supposed to have happened. Also, the entire Elias discussion, and how JS changed the wording of the scriptures. According to the book, the wording "turn the hearts of... " was supposed to be read "seal the hearts of...". But prior to this change, JS had already declared Malachi as correct, and the exact same wording is in the BofM. There were no changes.
Now all of the sudden a change? This is a SIGNIFICANT CHANGE....and considering the BofM was the most correct of any book on earth?
Hunh?
The data, IMHO, supports the conclusion some suggest that JS was having problems dealing with apostasy, and had to continue to give new doctrines to keep people in line. So, revelations were edited and pre-dated, etc. Because the church concludes JS was a prophet, they make the data fit their preconceptions.
I will never EVER be able to go back to this way of thinking, coming to the conclusion first and making the data fit it.
Any other ways the data is made to fit the preconceptions people care to share?