Syncretism and the Gospel

[Matthew J. Tandy]

As I am reading Mudcat's Alma 40 thread, a thought that often occurs to me presented itself once again:

Often times in the LDS Faith, and also in some other sects, we encourage the searching out of context to better understand a passage. What was the environment of Joseph Smith when he received the Word of Wisdom? What else was happening leading up to the MMM? Who was Nicodemus? Why did Abraham have "followers"? What cultures surrounded Israel and how did their religious practices affect them? And yet, despite our willingness to search out context, I would say that we are as guilty as many others in that we fail to take it to the final and logical step that is often needed to fully understand a passage: We attempt to syncretise our modern views, even one's received by revelation, with those of the ancients.

Why does this matter? Because in the Alma 40 thread, people are debating what Alma meant while using modern scriptures. The problem is that modern scriptures and Alma's teaching on Spirit Prison don't perfectly match up, although they do reflect some similarities. We do the same thing with just about every passage in the Book of Mormon that we don't understand. We force one religious view to fit perfectly into our modern worldview. That is syncretism: to fuse two separate thoughts, beliefs, or practices into one.

This is more frustrating to see in Latter-Day Saints. Here we have the Doctrine and Covenants, modern prophets, and more. We claim that God is revealing things hidden from the foundations of the earth. And then we go and try and say the Book of Mormon and Biblical people knew these things in an attempt to justify our faith. While there will certainly be elements that match, we should be careful not to force it. Is it not possible that Alma simply may not have had as much revealed to him as we do today? Is it possible Nephi didn't know everything about the Restored Gospel? I would posit that very few people that we know of have Had everything revealed to them: Adam, Moses, Enoch, Mahonri Moriancumer, possibly (but not likely) Joseph Smith. These people had everything shown to them... as it pertains to this life. Even among those it has been said that no one has ever had revealed the nature and extent of Outer Darkness. So why are we trying to get our views to mesh with theirs when they may simply have not know also?

I encourage a little less syncretism and a little more willingness to simply say "X ancient person simply did not know because it was not revealed to him/her/" Just because Alma has an angel tell him about spirit prison does not mean that the Angel revealed everything about, the tiny nuances involving what it's like and who goes or leaves from there, or how it relates in every possible facet to the rest of the Plan of Salvation. Part of the beauty of living Prophets is that new things are yet revealed. If there was nothing new, we wouldn't receive revelations on them.

[consiglieri]

Agreed, mi amigo!

And oftentimes, by trying to force our views on scripture, we end up silencing the message they seek to convey.

Merry Christmas!

--Consiglieri

[Hick Preacher]

Exactly--

In Genesis it reads 'let Us" create this and that... sounds like a prehistoric polythesitc account.

yet in Isaiah the creation event indicated that Jehovah did it alone. (sounds like a monothesitic version of the same event)

I have wondered if Genesis is a polythestic council of the Gods era account were Baal and the other god associates were in the prehistoric culture viewed as the creators.

I have wondered it Abraham knew Jehovah by the term Baal as 'lord'.

Afterall even as late as Saul childrem were named with Baal names.

Then Ezra came back from captivity and revised and restored the early texts with a more monothestic flavor.

[consiglieri]

Then Ezra came back from captivity and revised and restored the early texts with a more monothestic flavor.

There.

That's better!

[LifeOnaPlate]

Great observations, and good reasons to take the Book of Mormon seriously as it stands on its own (in addition to but sometimes apart from, current LDS thought). This is one of the main reasons I strongly recommend Gardner's Second Witness series, even if you don't always agree with his conclusions. Latter-day Saints, critics, and even casual observers have a tendency to read the Book of Mormon through a modern lens. Most Book of Mormon commentaries attempt to help readers better understand how the text can apply in everyday gospel living today. This approach can be beneficial and important. About 18 years ago the FARMS Review published a review of Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert Millet's commentary on the Book of Mormon. The reviewer described what he felt was lacking in the commentary:

My view is that [the authors] would have been more successful if they had been less concerned that the reader be coached on correct versions of what a Mormon ought to believe on a host of matters, and more concerned about attempting to get clear on the beliefs, practices, and understandings of divine things in the world called forth by the text, which necessarily includes much more than a collection of precise little doctrinal assertions or allusions, always seen through the lens of how we currently tend to understand such things (Louis Midgley, "Prophetic Messages or Dogmatic Theology? Commenting on the Book of Mormon: A Review Essay," FARMS Review 1:1 [1989].

Brant Gardner explained in the Introduction to his volume 1:

The people of the Book of Mormon lived in two different worlds. The first was the Old World. For a short time, the text is anchored in both space and time by a known location (Jerusalem) and known events...When the story moves to the New World, the Book of Mormon becomes a text without a context...Without the human context provided by continuity of place and time, we increase the interpretive disjunction with which we frequently misread the Bible, even with its rich context...

We tend to read the Bible and the Book of Mormon as though people just like us wrote them. We assume that their concerns were our concerns and that the things that we care about most were precisely the things that they also cared about most. This reading backward of our world into theirs does not diminish our ability to discern spiritual value in the Bible or the Book of Mormon...

One of this commentary's goals is to recontextualize the Book of Mormon so that it is easier to understand that it is about real people and real places.

Your initial post asks the question: Should we expect the Nephites to have the same gospel understanding as the current LDS Church does?

I used to think it could be that simple (I hadn't actually examined the thought, it was more of a "given"), and still in many areas this appears to be a fine approach. However, the Church's that belief in continuing revelation makes development or different understanding of things over time or in different situations possible. When our sixth article of faith says "We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth," it does not mean that the Church on earth in Christ's day (or among the Nephites) exactly paralleled the current organization complete with Young Men/Young Women advisers.

I like D&C 1:24 in this regard:

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

Adaptation, circumstance, language, culture, what a melting pot! Joseph Smith explained:

This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conductedâ??by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God commands is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire (TPJS, 256-267).

So in our canon we see different understandings of different gospel aspects; the scriptures are polyvocal. There is no explicit reference to ordinance work for the dead in the Book of Mormon. And check out Alma literally and openly speculating about gospel principles in the end of the Book of Alma. In Alma 40 he talks about the Spirit World. He says the information was made known unto him "by an angel," so this is something he apparently wouldn't have read in the scriptures, or records, he had. This is a development. It doesn't take him all the way, though, and Christ has yet to appear. So we don't get into further aspects of salvation for the dead etc. though the modern LDS Church apparently has a more robust understanding. We get to see revelation and change in action in the Book of Mormon, throughout the other scriptures and even in the history of the Church. The BoM concept of judgment also falls short of the further light and knowledge regarding degrees of glory, but the BoM concepts of judgment, justice, and mercy amazingly compliment the doctrinal development.

Finally, LDS ought to expect some developments from previous understanding. On September 6, 1842, the Prophet Joseph Smith wrote a letter to the Church describing the restoration not only in terms of bringing back the former truths, but in going even beyond that:

It is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times (D&C 128:18).

I believe part of the truths "never having been revealed" can include things not having been revealed in the same way, or to the same extent, or even that they are now revealed publicly.

[Jason]

If you're tying to understand what Alma knew about the gospel I can see limiting yourself to just his own writings, but if you're trying to understand THE GOSPEL, then you should use every resource you have, modern and ancient.

[Hick Preacher]

LOAP

Your initial post asks the question: Should we expect the Nephites to have the same gospel understanding as the current LDS Church does? I used to think it could be that simple (I hadn't actually examined the thought, it was more of a "given"), and still in many areas this appears to be a fine approach. However, the Church's that belief in continuing revelation makes development or different understanding of things over time or in different situations possible. When our sixth article of faith says "We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth," it does not mean that the Church on earth in Christ's day (or among the Nephites) exactly paralleled the current organization complete with Young Men/Young Women advisers.

I do not know if this was addressed to me as my question-- but it has been a rhetorical question of mine from time to time-But it would seem that the Book of Mormon internally claims that it can be rightly interpreted EXOTERICALLY by a common audience in our era. Yet I can understand how LDS who believe in Eternal Progression could reinterpret certain BoM teachings. Again- I will look into Gardner's volumes.

Then Ezra came back from captivity and revised and restored the early texts with a more monothestic flavor.

There.That's better!;

AH! that was an interesting revision you made.

[Mudcat]

As I am reading Mudcat's Alma 40 thread, a thought that often occurs to me presented itself once again:

Why does this matter? Because in the Alma 40 thread, people are debating what Alma meant while using modern scriptures. The problem is that modern scriptures and Alma's teaching on Spirit Prison don't perfectly match up, although they do reflect some similarities. We do the same thing with just about every passage in the Book of Mormon that we don't understand. We force one religious view to fit perfectly into our modern worldview. That is syncretism: to fuse two separate thoughts, beliefs, or practices into one.

Hi Matthew,

Merry Christmas to you and many happy returns.

Though at present I don't hold an LDS dispensationalistic(not a real word, but I like it) viewpoint. I certainly believe that God has built upon his teachings as time has progressed and has dispensed knowledge here and there. You make a valid point about syncretism in religion. We Evangelicals are just as guilty of squeezing our teachings into the past as anyone else.

Regardless, I think its important for us to do our best to see not only how Scripture applies to us today, but also how it applied to those in the past. By doing so we can 'sortof' rewind the clock and watch faith become what it is. We can see where the foundation was laid, and what seems to be foundational. In the example of Alma, I agree that he didn't know all things, but it interesting to look at what Alma and the peoples there knew.

I think its a difficult thing to do though. I know I am way to subjective an individual to delineate or parse out my beliefs from the text.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Mudcat, it goes to show that the weightier matters of the BOM (including the notion of dialogic revelation, to steal a word from Terryl Givens) is as crucial to the BoM as its historical and doctrinal words.

[jadams_4242]

As I am reading Mudcat's Alma 40 thread, a thought that often occurs to me presented itself once again:

Often times in the LDS Faith, and also in some other sects, we encourage the searching out of context to better understand a passage. What was the environment of Joseph Smith when he received the Word of Wisdom? What else was happening leading up to the MMM? Who was Nicodemus? Why did Abraham have "followers"? What cultures surrounded Israel and how did their religious practices affect them? And yet, despite our willingness to search out context, I would say that we are as guilty as many others in that we fail to take it to the final and logical step that is often needed to fully understand a passage: We attempt to syncretise our modern views, even one's received by revelation, with those of the ancients.

Why does this matter? Because in the Alma 40 thread, people are debating what Alma meant while using modern scriptures. The problem is that modern scriptures and Alma's teaching on Spirit Prison don't perfectly match up, although they do reflect some similarities. We do the same thing with just about every passage in the Book of Mormon that we don't understand. We force one religious view to fit perfectly into our modern worldview. That is syncretism: to fuse two separate thoughts, beliefs, or practices into one.

This is more frustrating to see in Latter-Day Saints. Here we have the Doctrine and Covenants, modern prophets, and more. We claim that God is revealing things hidden from the foundations of the earth. And then we go and try and say the Book of Mormon and Biblical people knew these things in an attempt to justify our faith. While there will certainly be elements that match, we should be careful not to force it. Is it not possible that Alma simply may not have had as much revealed to him as we do today? Is it possible Nephi didn't know everything about the Restored Gospel? I would posit that very few people that we know of have Had everything revealed to them: Adam, Moses, Enoch, Mahonri Moriancumer, possibly (but not likely) Joseph Smith. These people had everything shown to them... as it pertains to this life. Even among those it has been said that no one has ever had revealed the nature and extent of Outer Darkness. So why are we trying to get our views to mesh with theirs when they may simply have not know also?

I encourage a little less syncretism and a little more willingness to simply say "X ancient person simply did not know because it was not revealed to him/her/" Just because Alma has an angel tell him about spirit prison does not mean that the Angel revealed everything about, the tiny nuances involving what it's like and who goes or leaves from there, or how it relates in every possible facet to the rest of the Plan of Salvation. Part of the beauty of living Prophets is that new things are yet revealed. If there was nothing new, we wouldn't receive revelations on them.

I beleive the bible and its lack of inerrancy has a lot to do with this issue.

[Hick Preacher]

LoAP-

The Book of Mormon as 'dialogic revelation' !

Does this mean the Book of Mormon has a secret and esoteric meaning that can be read between the lines??

A kind of multivalence?

[Hick Preacher]

I

beleive the bible and its lack of inerrancy has a lot to do with this issue.

What kind of inerrancy are you thinking about?

KJV

infallibility

verbal inerrancy

neo-orthodox

?

[Matthew J. Tandy]

To Clarify:

I believe it is critical that we apply the scriptures to ourseslves, just as Nephi did. However, he was speaking about the mercy of God, moral lessons, and seeing patterns in God's dealings with man. Thus, I can apply anything from the scriptures to be profitable in my life. This is different from making my Gospel doctrine understandings fit into the Nephite or Israelite worldview.

As Mudcat aptly stated, it is important to both apply the scriptures today as also understand them as the original writers would have. The difficulty is in not confusing the two.