Ugo on DNA & Book of Mormon

Public forum to discuss questions about Mormon history and doctrine.
DoubtingTom
Posts: 225
Joined: 22 Mar 2017, 12:13

Re: Ugo on DNA & Book of Mormon

Post by DoubtingTom » 02 Oct 2017, 07:12

nibbler wrote:
02 Oct 2017, 06:01
Please don't read any intent or an attack into this question. This question is genuine.
gospeltangents wrote:
01 Oct 2017, 13:41
I would like it to be historical ...
Why?

- - - - -

I haven't studied Deutero-Isaiah, Trito-Isaiah, Tetarto-Isaiah, or any number of Isaiahs but I wonder what drives the theory. I've only heard things in passing, and this is where I hope someone else can help me out. It seems like a big part of the multiple author theory is based on elements of the book of Isaiah that could only have been written much later based on what were current events at the time. How does that change if one were to believe that Isaiah was a future-peeping prophet? Not someone writing down events after the fact but someone writing down visions of future events.

Off subject, I know.
My understanding of the Isaiah problem is that the writer references events almost casually, as if they were common knowledge at the time as events that happened in the past. Almost universal agreement amongst scholars that those parts were written after the events, not before, especially since the writer is not prophesying about these events but just mentioning them as if the reader will understand these events already happened. There are a few BYU scholars who maintain a single author theory, but my opinion is they only do that to reduce the problem of deutero-Isaiah showing up in the BoM. I accept the near unanimous opinion of scholars about Isaiah, including many scholars inside the LDS faith.
Last edited by DoubtingTom on 02 Oct 2017, 08:19, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gospeltangents
Posts: 156
Joined: 10 Jul 2017, 22:50
Location: Utah
Contact:

Re: Ugo on DNA & Book of Mormon

Post by gospeltangents » 02 Oct 2017, 08:13

I would like the BoM to be historical because that was my understanding growing up--that it was historical. Now, can one find it useful even if not historical? Of course. Cody at Wheat and Tares wrote a post on that just last week: https://wheatandtares.org/2017/09/20/bo ... istorical/ That also seems to be the position of the Community of Christ.

As for multiple Isaiahs, some scholars don't believe in miracles or prophecy. When Isaiah prophecies, they think it is a later writer looking back and talking history to sound like prophecy, and puts in some anachronisms.
See my latest interviews on Mormon History, Science & Theology at www.gospeltangents.com

Post Reply