Apocrypha vs Canon

What do you think about the latest hot topic from the 100 Hour Board? Speak your piece here!

Moderator: Marduk

Post Reply
Integrating Editor
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 3:03 pm

Apocrypha vs Canon

Post by Integrating Editor »

Disclaimer: I take Moroni at his word that there might be mistakes in the scriptures—"if there are faults they are the mistakes of men." I believe that the scriptures are the word of God filtered through mortal men (gender intentionally specified) and that some things almost certainly got lost along the way. I'm okay with prayerfully considering how much specific passages or aspects of the scriptures might be the result of the cultural and personal perspective of the writers instead of being from God. If approaching the scriptures that way makes you uncomfortable, you might not want to read the rest of this.

From Board Question #87426:
The Entomophagist wrote:The second is that we get enough weird looks from the rest of Christianity without accepting the Apocrypha into our (already extended) canon.
Accepting some of these books as canon only separates you from mainstream Christianity if Catholicism isn't mainstream.
The Entomophagist wrote:Think about it: no one has anywhere close to an original manuscript for any apocryphal works, assuming they were actually written down close to the time that they occurred; at least we can say that Joseph Smith had the gold plates when he translated the Book of Mormon.
I'd be really interested in seeing an original manuscript of Genesis. I'm not sure I understand the point being made here.

Also,
Kirito wrote:What I love so much about the scriptures is you can trust them. You don't always know exactly what it means sometimes, but whatever it means, it's true. The Apocrypha isn't in our canon because you can't quite trust it like you can the scriptures.
As I said in the disclaimer, I don't quite agree with all of that. For instance, I find it pretty difficult to discover any divine truth in "let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak." Not letting women pray in General Conference seems to have been about the last vestige of the Church's adherence to that admonition, but now we've allowed women to speak to God as the voice of the Church as a whole. And the Church didn't seem to need a new revelation establishing the fulfillment of a law or the dawning of a new era in order to ignore those words of scripture. Interesting.

Instead of the difference being questionable versus unassailably true, I use different standards of evidence to make determinations about falsehood. With apocrypha, I'm comfortable going with untrue based on the preponderance of the evidence while with canon, I tend to assume truth unless it is beyond reasonable doubt. But, you know, I'm just the transgender kid whose take on the Church is automatically highly suspect anyway.
Craig Jessop
Pulchritudinous
Posts: 1300
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:55 pm

Re: Apocrypha vs Canon

Post by Craig Jessop »

I totally agree with all of this. +1000

I like Lowell Bennion's approach to the scriptures. If you've got an extra penny (plus $3.99 in shipping), you will probably like his book on scripture study a lot.
User avatar
Portia
Posts: 5186
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:06 am
Location: Zion

Re: Apocrypha vs Canon

Post by Portia »

From my former-Mormon perspective, the claim that "Joseph Smith had the gold plates when he translated the Book of Mormon" is ... completely unsubstantiated and definitely contradicted by the historical record.

So if you're merely trying to decrease your "raised eyebrows while making a weird face" points ... not succeeding. I don't think that it's a good epistemology for your ... mythos? Belief system? Whatnot.
User avatar
Portia
Posts: 5186
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:06 am
Location: Zion

Re: Apocrypha vs Canon

Post by Portia »

Or at best a somewhat sanitized version of what the participants themselves claimed. (Whom you then have to make the decision yourself whether they were reliable witnesses. That's how truth claims work.)

I mean, the various magical stones and using a hat and so forth aren't exactly what I would think of as "translation" in the sense that, say, King James' assembled team gathered together what the believed were ancient records and then used philology. I'm not a Christian either, but it's a translation process that's more substantiated than something that is 100% mystical, from a language that has an actual historical record.

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-morm ... n?lang=eng

Honestly, to me this is just super bizarre and out there, right up there with fortune-telling and oil essentialism. And this is literally from only the LDS.org website. If it gives you warm fuzzies, fine, but it seems really self-aggrandizing to basically throw shade at something because, essentially, you're unfamiliar with it.

I think a less-literalist approach to scripture would ultimately do far more good in the world, but yeah. The weird looks you're getting have ... reasons.
User avatar
Portia
Posts: 5186
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:06 am
Location: Zion

Re: Apocrypha vs Canon

Post by Portia »

One last link, because it's pretty funny, considering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of ... #Apocrypha

:P
Craig Jessop
Pulchritudinous
Posts: 1300
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:55 pm

Re: Apocrypha vs Canon

Post by Craig Jessop »

The Church's narrative about the gold plates needs to change, but I see very little incentive for it to change overnight. I'd say that the vast, vast, vast majority of members don't care one bit about seer stones and hats and folk magic. To change the narrative on them would be disrupting to people who don't need to be disrupted. The Church "works wonderfully" for them, and telling them Santa Claus doesn't live at the North Pole would just cause chaos. In the coming decade the narrative will slowly change, and tomorrow's seminary students and YW/YM classes will grow up knowing all about the stone in the hat. The method of translation/transcription/revelation won't matter much, I think. In 10 years, this Board answer will sounds as dated as the homophobic Board answers from 2006 (can you believe we've been reading the Board that long?!).

As for the historicity of the gold plates, I feel like the historical record is clear that Joseph at least had something under the cloth or in the barrel of beans. I believe he had gold plates; I find the evidence sufficient to allow belief in them as literal objects. I trust the witnesses, as well as the Holy Ghost. We can bicker back and forth like FAIR and Jeremy Runnells, but as you said, each person has to make the decision what or whom to believe. I feel like I have sufficient evidence to allow belief, and I have had spiritual experiences that have confirmed it to me.
User avatar
Portia
Posts: 5186
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:06 am
Location: Zion

Re: Apocrypha vs Canon

Post by Portia »

Craig Jessop wrote:The Church's narrative about the gold plates needs to change, but I see very little incentive for it to change overnight. I'd say that the vast, vast, vast majority of members don't care one bit about seer stones and hats and folk magic. To change the narrative on them would be disrupting to people who don't need to be disrupted. The Church "works wonderfully" for them, and telling them Santa Claus doesn't live at the North Pole would just cause chaos. In the coming decade the narrative will slowly change, and tomorrow's seminary students and YW/YM classes will grow up knowing all about the stone in the hat. The method of translation/transcription/revelation won't matter much, I think. In 10 years, this Board answer will sounds as dated as the homophobic Board answers from 2006 (can you believe we've been reading the Board that long?!).

As for the historicity of the gold plates, I feel like the historical record is clear that Joseph at least had something under the cloth or in the barrel of beans. I believe he had gold plates; I find the evidence sufficient to allow belief in them as literal objects. I trust the witnesses, as well as the Holy Ghost. We can bicker back and forth like FAIR and Jeremy Runnells, but as you said, each person has to make the decision what or whom to believe. I feel like I have sufficient evidence to allow belief, and I have had spiritual experiences that have confirmed it to me.
These are interesting thoughts, thanks.

I think that re-reading the various accounts, I'd agree there was something, whether it was a stage prop or what, I'm not sure.

To me, it seems somewhat ... snobbish, maybe? ... to dismiss your co-religionists as, essentially, children whose bubble you don't want to burst. I think that the truth can withstand scrutiny. I don't see why folk magic and seer stones need to be particularly disturbing to followers of a religion with far stranger rituals, frankly.

I still stand by my impression that Mormons as a whole could benefit from being more open-minded to learning the scriptures and cultures of other faiths. My Islam (and the Gospel! haha) class wasn't amazing or anything -- in fact, my professor never saw a PowerPoint he wouldn't read from -- but it gave me something.

The Apocrypha are a part of the Christian tradition, not something to be feared or scorned. Again, I'm not Christian, but I am a WASP by birth so everything from literature to architecture to science depends on the Judeo-Christian + Enlightenment tradition. Maybe I'll go find a decent translation and read it myself!

I do hope that historicity doesn't become a dirty word. Very few things get my goat as much as aging white people going on cruises to Guatemala to "find" the "Book of Mormon" sites. It's like, people, if we knew, don't you think a prophetic figure would have told you?!
Zedability
Posts: 987
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 6:17 pm

Re: Apocrypha vs Canon

Post by Zedability »

I had a great Relief Society lesson on the apocrypha on my mission. Small Podunk Newfoundland and it was the best-researched RS lesson I ever had. I definitely think there's room to expand the discourse.

I agree that when you look at the whole of things, seer stones and such aren't any weirder than the rest of Church teachings - people just react weirdly when it's new information.
User avatar
Portia
Posts: 5186
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:06 am
Location: Zion

Re: Apocrypha vs Canon

Post by Portia »

Zedability wrote:I had a great Relief Society lesson on the apocrypha on my mission. Small Podunk Newfoundland and it was the best-researched RS lesson I ever had. I definitely think there's room to expand the discourse.

I agree that when you look at the whole of things, seer stones and such aren't any weirder than the rest of Church teachings - people just react weirdly when it's new information.
I never knew I needed Newfies in my life until your mission. :-)
Post Reply