David Bokovoy on Mormon Stories

I haven’t listened to it yet. Since I’m not a member anymore, I’ve found that I have little patience for apologetics and I wasn’t entirely sure how that interview was going to go.

Reading your post though, I’m thinking I’ll put it in the queue

I am curious how Bokovoy’s critical analysis might be similar or different than that in the book “Misquoting Jesus” that dealt with the NT. Is Bokovoy applying the same techniques to the the OT? http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1507&hilit=misquoting+jesus

fascinating! I personally wonder if JS thought that the BoA is what Abraham would have said or if JS needed an ancient source for his theology to have credibility. One of the things that “Misquoting Jesus” explores is that new religions often lay claim to old beliefs, prophecies, and scriptures but take them in a new direction. This way the religion is exciting and fresh while also having an old historic feel…the fulfilment of things foretold. “Misquoting Jesus” was applying this pattern to the way that Christianity coopted the Jewish scriptures and history as their own – with a twist.

One of the things that “Misquoting Jesus” explores is that new religions often lay claim to old beliefs, prophecies, and scriptures but take them in a new direction. This way the religion is exciting and fresh while also having an old historic feel…the fulfilment of things foretold.

He explores this idea quite a bit and calls it “actualization.” For example, Matthew quotes Isaiah to show that the virgin birth was prophesied in the Old Testament. But, looking at the text, this prophesy in Isaiah is fulfilled a little later on in the narrative and is taken out of context by Matthew to apply to Jesus. We’ve also actualized the Old Testament to be about dispensations, prophets, priesthood and ordinances. But, when you look at the actual text, this is not what is going on. But, this made Mormonism fresh, exciting and bolstered the restorationist claims.

Is the whole idea of separate dispensations of the fulness of the Gospel with Adam, Abraham, Moses, etc followed by periods of apostasy and then restoration, leading up to the Great Apostasy and then the Restoration with Joseph Smith supported by the Old Testament? Is this narrative just made up whole cloth by the Church to support it’s own doctrine, or do other religions also read dispensations into the Old Testament? This is what missionaries currently teach and the whole premise seems completely unsupported by an actual reading of the text. Even the idea of Jesus establishing a church followed by a great apostasy doesn’t seem to be supported by actual history. Do those more knowledgable than me know?

All religions have an appeal to authority. Only the LDS and the Catholics have an appeal to the priesthood authority, from the religious organization Christ set up (Matthew 16:18-19). The rest of Christianity claim the Bible (and the Spirit) as their authority. It connects them to Christ. Christ based much of his claims of authority back to the Old Testament prophets, down ultimately to Moses/Abraham.

The scriptures, and even Jesus Christ himself are VERY cryptic, ambiguous, and open to interpretation. This allows just about anyone to use them to support whatever line of thinking they want to advocate, as well as foster feelings of awe, mystery, exclusivity (we’re the ones “in the know”), etc. It was also why Joseph Smith needed the Book of Mormon.

fascinating! I personally wonder if JS thought that the BoA is what Abraham would have said or if JS needed an ancient source for his theology to have credibility. One of the things that “Misquoting Jesus” explores is that new religions often lay claim to old beliefs, prophecies, and scriptures but take them in a new direction. This way the religion is exciting and fresh while also having an old historic feel…the fulfilment of things foretold. “Misquoting Jesus” was applying this pattern to the way that Christianity coopted the Jewish scriptures and history as their own – with a twist.

That’s the same concept as successful business expansions. There was a Harvard article that indicated businesses that expand into “new” areas successfully do so by leveraging existing knowledge, while expanding upon it. For example, someone wanting to expand their line of formal pants wouldn’t go into pet supplies. They would branch out into casual pants, or maybe accessories like belts and suspenders. That way they know the clientele, already have distribution and contacts in the industry, and generally know how to market the product, with some slight new learning. They also get to leverage the name of their brand further without confusing anyone, and enjoy a greater probability of success.

The chances of success go way up, provided other fundamentals are in place.

It doesn’t surprise me that certain religions, like Mormonism, had success after latching on to the same concept. I will admit, though, that Mormonism is substantially different from traditional Christianity, and I think that’s a double edged sword. It attracts certain people due to its newness and explanation of things left unexplained in Christianity, but it’s also different enough to unleash the wrath of traditional Christians. Something close to mainstream Christinaity, originally, may have been more successful.