What parts of the Pearl of Great Price are in scope for this site?

Question

My understanding has long been that none of the Pearl of Great Price is in scope for this site; see prior Meta discussion of this topic here and here.

This recent question, and the comments upon it, suggest community interest in something different. The second comment on the OP (with 7 upvotes at this moment), if applied consistently, would render about 50% of the Pearl of Great Price in scope for the site (incidentally, it would also mean about 10% of the Book of Mormon is in scope too).

Taking this feedback to its logical conclusion, here's what I'm seeing. Contents of the Pearl of Great Price:

• Book of Moses (in scope per aforementioned comment)
• Book of Abraham (out of scope per aforementioned comment)
• Joseph Smith - Matthew (in scope)
• Joseph Smith History (most of it out of scope, but several sections would be in scope)
• Articles of Faith (out of scope)

(presumably all excerpts from the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) would be in scope...though subsequent discussion might be needed on which version of the JST was in scope)

Latter-day Saints do not believe the JST is based on textual criticism. Non-Latter-day Saints do not believe the JST is based on textual criticism. I think that pretty well covers everybody.

I have not proposed closing the question, but I have suggested it best fits on Christianity Stack Exchange, as the heart of the matter is theology, not textual criticism. Since at least 8 community members disagreed with me (in less than half a day) on migrating the question, I'd like to understand what (if anything) is changing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to ask interesting questions about the Pearl of Great Price on this site, but I doubt that's what the community is looking for, and I would like to clarify where the community stands on the matter before doing so.

---

Post-script to encourage productive discussion

This post does not seek an explanation of the recent question linked above (already got that covered), but rather, seeks a logically consistent standard for which portions of the Pearl of Great Price are in and out of scope for the site. I will be neither surprised nor disappointed if the answer is that none of this text in is scope.

Asked another way: how can the JST be in scope and the PoGP out of scope when JST passages are part of the Pearl of Great Price?

Answer 1

Consider an early Christian letter that is not typically included in the Bible: Polycarp to the Philippians. It contains many quotations from writings that are clearly on-topic for the site. The letter is invaluable for informing us of the state of Christian texts at the time of its writing. (There's even a database of cross-references, which can be quite useful.) For instance, we can potentially better understand 1 Timothy 6:10 by bringing in evidence from Polycarp.

But Polycarp's letter is not itself in the scope of the site with a few narrow exceptions:

1. We might consider the way that Polycarp uses biblical texts to ask a question about hermeneutical approaches.
2. We might think of Polycarp as a translation of the snippets of biblical text it quotes. (This would be more plausible for his quotations of Hebrew scripture since the letter is in Greek.)
3. We might want to ask about whether Polycarp helps us understand the source of biblical texts.

The bulk of questions on this site are interpretation questions: "What does this passage mean?" If "this passage" is specifically the text of Polycarp's letter, I'd argue the question is off-topic for this site. (Though there might be interest in Christianity.SE.) The three exceptions I listed (and thinking about it, there might be room to considers historical context too) allow this extra-biblical text to be the subject of the question because it serves as a proxy for questions about how we can understand the biblical texts which are the topic of the site.

The question on main that seems to have sparked this meta question is a useful example. The question is directly about the Joseph Smith Translation, but the question behind the question is really about John 4:24. Did the translator use evidence from manuscripts we have access to today?

Now I have a somewhat dim view of the usefulness of The Pearl of Great Price and other texts produced by Joseph Smith and his contemporaries. It seems possible to crank out endless variations of the question with similar answers. I don't think that's particularly useful or interesting. But occasional questions do seem worth asking if they bring something unique.

I should also note that texts (such as Polycarp's letter) that are closer chronologically to the biblical texts are likely to be a better source of on-topic questions than texts far removed (such as Joseph Smith's output).

---

Responses to comments

I sought a logically consistent standard for which portions of the PoGP are in and out of scope for the site - do I correctly surmise that you believe a clear standard on this matter is unattainable?

No. It's pretty clear to me that the Pearl of Great Price is not a biblical text for the purposes of this site. It's not profitable to divide the text into in-scope and out-of-scope sections for the same reason it isn't possible to do that with Polycarp's letter. Either a text as a whole is "biblical" (in the context of this site) or it is not. At this point, the question of which texts are included seems pretty settled. It would require some discussion on Meta and some form of consensus to expand the list.

That said, it is possible to ask about a non-biblical texts in an ancillary manner, as I explained above.

How is "I have a somewhat dim view of the usefulness of The PoGP..." related to the OP? I recognize that most users of this site a) have a dim view of the PoGP & b) have not studied it, but this is not what I'm asking about. Since the Q behind the Q behind this Q was a disagreement on CSE, I asked for the very reason you outlined: "It seems possible to crank out endless variations of the question" - I'd rather avoid that. If we want to use the site as a force-multiplier for contempt for non-Biblical texts, we're merely limiting the diversity of thought we will see on the site. Why do that?

Generally speaking, the scope of one site is decided by the people within that's site's community and isn't dictated by some other site's scope. Obviously we should avoid overlap and strive to have a home for as many questions as possible. But that's a secondary goal. The important thing for this site is that questions asked here are of interest to this community.

My dim view of Pearl comes not from any preexisting theological position. Instead it comes from looking at how the text was produced and what it contains. In particular, it was published centuries after the texts this site considers in-scope based on a misinterpretation of Egyptian papyri, among other problems.

This why I considered Polycarp instead. His letter was produced contemporaneously with biblical texts and he appears to have access to very early Greek manuscripts. His paraphrasing and interpretation of biblical texts reflects someone who understands the original language (because he used it himself). Polycarp to the Philippians has a much better claim to being on-topic here, but it falls short.

Answer 2

The Pearl of Great Price is not in Scope, but John is

I think TPoGP is probably a bit of a charged subject. So let us talk about something less controversial: The Koran.

The Qu'ran makes claims about Jesus, those claims are not in scope of the StackExchange. However, "Could Barabbas being 'Released to them' in Mark 15:15 refer to Pilate sending Barabbas to be crucified at they demanded" would be, and the asker would probably include a reference to the Koran.

Or take the Passion Translation, the Passion Translation - like TPoGP claims special revelation - however, it seems to me obvious to me that 'Is this claim in the Passion Translation supported in the corresponding verse (in any manuscript tradition)' would be a legitimate question.

Or let us take a non-religious example: ancient law codes. If one reads a claim that Leviticus 19:18, in context only means the same as Item 244 in the Harummbai Law Code (perhaps with the idea that later readers projected a new meaning) then it would be obviously on-topic - to me - to ask 'Did the writer of Leviticus 19:18 mean only the same thing as Item 244 of the Harummbai Law Code?'

A key thing is that the meaning of the comparison text ought to be clear - or at least the asker's understanding of the compaison text ought to be clear - thus the question is "Does any manuscript tradition of this verse in the Bible mean/read this way", which seems obviously on-topic to me.

So, perhaps, if I had my way the linked question would read 'Do any manuscripts of John 4:24 agree with JST John 4:24?'. To get past the error in understanding of Mormon claims, but the question is a valid one since it is a question about the manuscript traditions of John 4:24, an inspired canonical book.