Abraham Lied

[Droopy]

Could you translate this for me? Are you positing that God loves best those who lie?

I think what Will is getting at is that most, though perhaps not all (I would submit that adultery and other such sins can never be justified) general gospel principles have their exceptions, under some extenuating conditions. This includes lying, killing, organized killing (war), and expressions of anger (righteous indignation) etc. The whole problem with Phariseeism is its disregard for the idea of levels or gradations in moral decision making that must be made, on occasion, in a complex and deeply imperfect world. Pacifism runs afoul of the same lack of moral nuance.

When those people stormed the cockpit of that hijacked airliner on 9/11, saying "let's roll", and sent it into the ground, they not only committed suicide (a sin), but condemned a number of other people to death (murder). They did this to save any number of other people, including, depending on just where that plane was headed, the Pentagon or the White House itself. Which was the greater sin, the Twin Towers attack, or the measures taken to prevent another similar incident taken by others that involved sacrificing themselves?

[William Schryver]

So not to worry that I am using all the class time focusing exclusively on prophetic peccadilloes.

The only justifiable worry would appear to be that you spend precious little time focusing on gospel doctrine.

[Anijen]

I love the Old Testament, it is truly eye popping and funny in certain areas (Deut 23:1). I wonder also, was bearing false witness a commandment at this time in Abraham's life? For sure it is wrong (the exceptions being one like this in Abraham's life) but Moses did not get the ten commandments until after this has happened.

[Droopy]

If it hasn't become clear yet, I wanted to take one class to devote to all the stories about Abraham from Genesis 12 to Genesis 25, or so, because some things you can see better when looking at the entire forest than by looking at each of the trees individually (and vice-versa, of course).

During class, we also talked about the same "types" of stories that are told throughout the cycle of Abraham, and other cycles, as well.

Sarah is the first example of the type story of a barren woman having a miracle baby by divine intervention; that this continues with Rebekah, and on down to Hannah, as well as into the New Testament with Elizabeth and Mary herself being a variant of that theme.

I also mentioned that the "matriarch in peril" type story of Sarah being taken into Pharoah's harem; a lie being told about the relationship with her husband, a curse upon Pharoah's house, and her subsequent release together with the enrichment of her husband, is encountered three times in Genesis: (1) The first account with Abraham and Pharoah at the beginning of the cycle; (2) The second account with Abraham and Abimilech toward the end of the cycle; and, (3) The account of Isaac and Abimilech shortly after the Abraham cycle is concluded.

I mentioned that it is difficult to say whether these are three really similar stories that actually happened three different times, or whether these are three slightly different accounts of the same story recorded in different places in the structural narrative.

I also mentioned that we had a similar situation with the two accounts of the angelic annunciation of the birth of Isaac; that in the first story, it is Abraham who laughs ("laughter" being the Hebrew word for "Isaac"); and in the second story that immediately follows, it is Sarah who laughs. Once again, it is hard to say whether these are two separate historic events that are just really similar, or whether it is an instance of two variants of the same story being included in Genesis.

One of the interesting moments in class was when I was talking about the first of these stories where Abraham laughs, and the ward Sunday school president pipes up and corrects me that it was Sarah who laughed, not Abraham. I had to gently inform him that Sarah laughs in the second story, and it is Abraham who laughs in the first story. A class member (without waiting to be called upon) read out loud at that point the verse that said Abraham laughed.

So not to worry that I am using all the class time focusing exclusively on prophetic peccadilloes.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

So, at the end of the day, without delving into every element of your above claims, are you primarily attempting to teach secular biblical scholarship with a Mormon gloss, or the gospel?

What are you actually trying to achieve?

[Spurven Ten Sing]

I think what Will is getting at is that most, though perhaps not all (I would submit that adultery and other such sins can never be justified) general gospel principles have their exceptions, under some extenuating conditions. This includes lying, killing, organized killing (war), and expressions of anger (righteous indignation) etc. The whole problem with Phariseeism is its disragard for the idea of levels or gradiations in moral decision making that must be made, on occasion, in a complex and deeply imperfect world. Pacifism runs afoul of the same lack of moral nuance.

When those people stormed the cockpit of that hijacked airliner on 9/11, saying "let's roll", and sent it into the ground, they not only committed suicide (a sin), but condemned a number of other people to death (murder). They did this to save any number of other people, including, depending on just where that plane was headed, the Pentagon or the White House itself. Which was the grater sin, the Twin Towers attack, or the measures taken to prevent another similar incident taken by others that involved sacrificing themselves?

I agree that perhaps Abraham had good cause to lie. I am learning quickly that some morals are not hard nor fast. I also wonder why the objection to the term? If Abraham lied under duress, he still lied, but did the right thing. Why deny he was lying? If JS lied to protect the Saints, why deny the was lying? This is the point that is interesting, why does Mr. Schryver see it differently?

[consiglieri]

The only justifiable worry would appear to be that you spend precious little time focusing on gospel doctrine.

I also mentioned in class the humorous episode where Sarah comes up with the idea of giving Hagar to Abraham to have a child, and then when Hagar gets pregnant and starts acting uppity, Sarah tells Abraham it is all his fault.

All in about three verses!

Are the stories of the patriarchs not there to teach us things?

And if so, how are the things they teach us not doctrine?

Should I present your version of "gospel doctrine" while eschewing the Old Testament I have been called to teach?

Let God decide between you and me.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

What are you actually trying to achieve?

Learning.

[katherine the great]

I have never thought of it that way. I have always presumed bearing false witness translates to lying. So lying is acceptable according to you?

Bearing false witness is not the same thing as just plain lying. It is actually much more comprehensive. A person could only be convicted of a crime that was witnessed by other people (since there was no CSI back in the day) so bearing false witness against someone could actually result in their death or severe punishment. It actually could be equated with murder if you falsely reported witnessing adultery or another "death penalty" crime.

[Droopy]

I agree that perhaps Abraham had good cause to lie. I am learning quickly that some morals are not hard nor fast. I also wonder why the objection to the term? If Abraham lied under duress, he still lied, but did the right thing. Why deny he was lying? If JS lied to protect the Saints, why deny the was lying? This is the point that is interesting, why does Mr. Schryver see it differently?

While it may have been under "duress" in some sense, as Will pointed out, it was in obedience to previous divine counsel received by revelation. I don't know that Will sees it differently. All he pointed out was that Sarah was Abraham's half sister, and hence, to point that fact out while not mentioning she was his wife is to tell the truth. It is also to lie by omission, but was the question asked of Abraham if she was his wife directly? No. All that was asked was "who is she".

I never tell the IRS about every quarter I pick up in a parking lot. I had an Institute teacher who insisted that this it was Church doctrine to do so, and that not doing so was somehow in violation of our covenants. I've ignored that opinion my entire life, and intend to continue doing so, just as I would never tell a Department of Fish, Game, and Wildlife officer that my land tended to hold standing water over long periods of time, unless he asked me directly if this was the case.

We are to be, as Christ said, wise as serpents in dealing with the world (in a lamb-like way, of course).

[William Schryver]

Droopy:

So, at the end of the day, without delving into every element of your above claims, are you primarily attempting to teach secular biblical scholarship with a Mormon gloss, or the gospel?

What are you actually trying to achieve?

I think it's all quite apparent.

This is actually a fairly common phenomenon in the church: the gospel doctrine instructor whose primary interest is the gospel doctrine instructor.

[Droopy]

Learning.

Could you answer my question please?

[Droopy]

I also mentioned in class the humorous episode where Sarah comes up with the idea of giving Hagar to Abraham to have a child, and then when Hagar gets pregnant and starts acting uppity, Sarah tells Abraham it is all his fault.

All in about three verses!

Are the stories of the patriarchs not there to teach us things?

And if so, how are the things they teach us not doctrine?

Should I present your version of "gospel doctrine" while eschewing the Old Testament I have been called to teach?

Let God decide between you and me.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I can't help but think that this is basically what we could expect if Anthony Hutchinson was writing our gospel doctrine manuals.

[consiglieri]

Could you answer my question please?

Do you think there is something more important that can happen in Sunday school class than learning?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Ceeboo]

Well, this strikes me a as rather strange thread !!

Of course, I might not really think it's strange at all. Perhaps I am simply lying.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Mark Beesley]

Do you think there is something more important that can happen in Sunday school class than learning?

I kinda just like it when I feel the Spirit. I don't much care whether or not I "learn" something new. I've found the vast majority of my learning takes place when I am alone with the Lord.

[William Schryver]

I kinda just like it when I feel the Spirit. I don't much care whether or not I "learn" something new. I've found the vast majority of my learning takes place when I am alone with the Lord.

I concur.

Plus, it has been my observation that the Spirit consistently gets in the way when my primary interest is self-promotion. Not that it always stops me, mind you. But when I permit myself to aspire to the honors of men, the Spirit is grieved, and I am left unto myself.

But hey, what do I know? I'm a bad man. Ask anyone.

[Droopy]

Do you think there is something more important that can happen in Sunday school class than learning?

Spiritual enlightenment, perhaps?

[volgadon]

Class went splendlidly, thanks in large measure to you. I told the class at the outset that I was going to try to give a bird's-eye view of the entire Abraham cycle, focusing in on the main theme of God's promise to Abraham of an heir and the tension throughout the cycle that the heir never materializes, in spite of three attempts by Abraham and Sarah to "help God out" with his promise by putting forward their own alternatives (Lot, Eliezer and Ishmael).

The story of good, decent folk trying to help God keep his word when God doesn't seem to be taking it seriously, is one with which my class could relate, and the instance of Abraham's lying in order to "help God out" with keeping his promise to protect Abraham is one more thread in the tapestry.

At the end of the class, I mentioned all that Abraham had gone through in order to finally get his heir and have God's promise fulfilled, only to have God turn around and say, "Now, kill him." I suggested this story was difficult enough standing on its own, but when we consider it at the apex of the Abraham cycle, it becomes even more difficult than we may have imagined it before.

Bravo!!! That is precisely why it was such a sore trial, worse than had he had many sons.

All seemed to agree, except for this older doughty sister who raised her hand and opined that she was more advanced in the scriptures than perhaps anyone else present, so she saw it differently, saying that it really wasn't a difficult test for Abraham to be ordered to slay Isaac because Abraham had complete faith in God and knew that he wouldn't have to follow through on it. (I was surprised by her reading, but listened politely, thinking this is the far end of the spectrum for those who refuse to see anything in a scriptural character other than out-and-out perfection in all things. Rather staid and boring for my taste, but others see things differently.)

A blue collar brother talked to me after class and said he was in awe of me for not coming down on this sister like a ton of bricks, but just letting her have her say.

utterly ridiculous. i don't think anyone who loved their son would be so blase.

Anyway, never a dull moment in gospel doctrine class, the acme of free expression and open dialogue on all things Mormon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[volgadon]

I also mentioned that we had a similar situation with the two accounts of the angelic annunciation of the birth of Isaac; that in the first story, it is Abraham who laughs ("laughter" being the Hebrew word for "Isaac"); and in the second story that immediately follows, it is Sarah who laughs. Once again, it is hard to say whether these are two separate historic events that are just really similar, or whether it is an instance of two variants of the same story being included in Genesis.

I'm sure they both laughed, wouldn't you? I would.

[volgadon]

Lying can be right under certain circumstances, doesn't mean it is not a lie being told. I'm reminded of a story by Mikhail Sholokhov, the end of WW2, Russia, some guy has just lost his entire family and village, he sees a little boy looking for his father, who apparently has died. He tells the boy I'm back, son! Is that not a lie? Utterly commendable, but still a lie.

[William Schryver]

I'm sure they both laughed, wouldn't you? I would.

Changing the subject, kind of, I have to admit that I have always been intrigued by the terminology Sarah uses when she hears the "good news."

After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?

I guess they didn't have any herbal Viagra back there in Canaan.

And maybe that's why old Abe was laughing, too.

[Zakuska]

I also mentioned that we had a similar situation with the two accounts of the angelic annunciation of the birth of Isaac; that in the first story, it is Abraham who laughs ("laughter" being the Hebrew word for "Isaac"); and in the second story that immediately follows, it is Sarah who laughs. Once again, it is hard to say whether these are two separate historic events that are just really similar, or whether it is an instance of two variants of the same story being included in Genesis.

I noticed that as well... of course then I went to the foot notes and realized the Hebrew word there is actually "rejoiced". Abraham rejoiced at the news he would have a son... where as Sarah laughted and mocked. Thats why the Lords reaction toward Sarah was different than that toward Abraham.

[consiglieri]

I kinda just like it when I feel the Spirit. I don't much care whether or not I "learn" something new. I've found the vast majority of my learning takes place when I am alone with the Lord.

Consider this an open invitation to attend my gospel doctrine class, then.

I have no illusions that I can in some way manipulate the Spirit into attending my class other than inviting its presence and teaching the scriptures as best I can.

I let God handle the rest.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Spiritual enlightenment, perhaps?

How does learning about the scriptures differ from spiritual enlightenment?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Senator]

Do you think there is something more important that can happen in Sunday school class than learning?

Spiritual enlightenment, perhaps?

Are these mutually exclusive?

Perhaps you meant to say "Spiritual promotion"?