Reading Scripture as "univocal"

[Rob Bowman]

Since an increasing number of LDS participants here seem to feel that they are on very solid ground in disputing the validity of reading the Bible as "univocal" (that is, as coherent in its teachings), I have some questions on this issue.

1. The point keeps being made that this is a bad way to read the Bible, but I never hear any Mormon warning about the dangers of reading the Book of Mormon or the other LDS scriptures as univocal. One Mormon here (Dan) admitted, when I asked him, that on his view it would also be a mistake to read the LDS scriptures as univocal, but this was a grudging concession at best. I would like to ask: Do you think Mormons should read the LDS scriptures (the "Triple Combination") univocally? In your own reading of the scriptures, do you assume, at least as a working assumption, that the Book of Mormon will agree with the Book of Abraham? Do you assume that 1 Nephi will agree with Moroni?

2. Assuming that you take the view that none of the scriptures should be read as univocal, would it then follow that from your perspective we should be neither surprised nor troubled if, say, the Book of Abraham contradicted the Book of Moses?

3. Hypothetically, if the texts of the 66 books that constitute the Protestant canon of the Bible were perfectly preserved, would your objections to reading the Bible univocally be moot? In other words, is your criticism of reading the Bible univocally grounded on the belief that the texts have been imperfectly transmitted?

4. Granted for the sake of discussion that you do not view the whole Bible as univocal, would you tend to view a single author in the Bible, or a single book in the Bible, as internally coherent, or do you dismiss the internal coherence of each book of the Bible as well as the coherence of the Bible as a whole?

5. Suppose, hypothetically speaking, that a reader approached the Bible as univocal, carefully read the whole Bible from that perspective, and made every effort to develop a unified theological outlook or system that integrated as much as possible the teachings of all of the books of the Bible. Would you think that such a theological system would look more like an LDS doctrinal system or more like an evangelical Protestant doctrinal system?

6. In the doctrinally oriented curricula published by the LDS Church, such as Gospel Principles, quotations and citations from all of the Standard Works are presented side by side in support of LDS doctrinal positions. One may typically see such publications citing texts from the Old Testament, the Book of Mormon, D&C, and the Book of Abraham, and using these texts to develop a coherent theological narrative or doctrinal concept. Is this a legitimate practice, or is the LDS Church curricula also guilty of illegitimately reading the scriptures as univocal?

7. Are you aware of any warnings from any LDS Church presidents or prophets, or any of the GAs, about the error of reading the extrabiblical scriptures of the LDS Church as univocal? Have any leaders of the LDS Church ever taught that the books in the Book of Mormon cannot be assumed to reflect a coherent theological position, or that it is a mistake to assume that the Book of Abraham will agree with the Book of Moses, or that Joseph's later revelations in D&C correct or supplant some of the earlier revelations in D&C?

8. Do you approach the interpretation of the scriptures according to the teachings of the living prophets, or according to your own academic standards--or do you see no conflict between the two?

[jwhitlock]

Written language is an imperfect form of communication. It is imprecise, and because it is so, it is subject to the reader's interpretations based on their perspective. As such, I have found nothing that is totally, internally consistent and self explanatory within itself - and that includes the LDS scriptures, along with the Bible.

I am surprised that there should even be any claim that scriptures are self explanatory, given the multitude of interpretations that accompany those scriptures - including LDS scriptures.

Reconciliation of the imprecision inherent in written communication can only be done through the guidance of the Spirit. It cannot be done through logical analysis alone; that should be evident from the differing conclusions scholars come to about scriptural passages.

[maklelan]

Since an increasing number of LDS participants here seem to feel that they are on very solid ground in disputing the validity of reading the Bible as "univocal" (that is, as coherent in its teachings), I have some questions on this issue.

I'm suspicious that these questions will have more to do with Mormon scripture than with the Bible, as if the Bible suddenly becomes univocal if some Mormons believe their scriptures are univocal.

1. The point keeps being made that this is a bad way to read the Bible, but I never hear any Mormon warning about the dangers of reading the Book of Mormon or the other LDS scriptures as univocal. One Mormon here (Dan) admitted, when I asked him, that on his view it would also be a mistake to read the LDS scriptures as univocal, but this was a grudging concession at best.

Was it? Here's what I said in response to your question:

I don't believe in inerrancy in scripture, and so I don't believe that scripture should necessarily be accepted as univocal. Even the title page of the Book of Mormon recognizes that human error can influence the text.

I don't how this is at all a "grudging confession at best."

I would like to ask: Do you think Mormons should read the LDS scriptures (the "Triple Combination") univocally? In your own reading of the scriptures, do you assume, at least as a working assumption, that the Book of Mormon will agree with the Book of Abraham? Do you assume that 1 Nephi will agree with Moroni?

For a simple illustration, please compare the creation of the heavens and the earth as recorded in the Book of Moses (Moses 2) to the version in the Book of Abraham (Abraham 4).

2. Assuming that you take the view that none of the scriptures should be read as univocal, would it then follow that from your perspective we should be neither surprised nor troubled if, say, the Book of Abraham contradicted the Book of Moses?

See above. The genre of the creation accounts is that of a temple text. They differ for a didactic reason.

3. Hypothetically, if the texts of the 66 books that constitute the Protestant canon of the Bible were perfectly preserved, would your objections to reading the Bible univocally be moot? In other words, is your criticism of reading the Bible univocally grounded on the belief that the texts have been imperfectly transmitted?

My personal belief is that as much of the personalities and worldviews of the original authors (excluding editors and redactors) are found in the texts as the unadulterated mind of God.

4. Granted for the sake of discussion that you do not view the whole Bible as univocal, would you tend to view a single author in the Bible, or a single book in the Bible, as internally coherent, or do you dismiss the internal coherence of each book of the Bible as well as the coherence of the Bible as a whole?

That depends on the book, but for the most part, few books have been untouched by multiple redaction.

5. Suppose, hypothetically speaking, that a reader approached the Bible as univocal, carefully read the whole Bible from that perspective, and made every effort to develop a unified theological outlook or system that integrated as much as possible the teachings of all of the books of the Bible. Would you think that such a theological system would look more like an LDS doctrinal system or more like an evangelical Protestant doctrinal system?

Can't be done. There's no reconciling the irreconcilable. At some point texts are going to have to be given priority over other texts and texts are going to have to be ignored.

6. In the doctrinally oriented curricula published by the LDS Church, such as Gospel Principles, quotations and citations from all of the Standard Works are presented side by side in support of LDS doctrinal positions. One may typically see such publications citing texts from the Old Testament, the Book of Mormon, D&C, and the Book of Abraham, and using these texts to develop a coherent theological narrative or doctrinal concept. Is this a legitimate practice, or is the LDS Church curricula also guilty of illegitimately reading the scriptures as univocal?

The LDS curricula are based on modern revelation and supplemented by scripture. While the curricula maintains a conservative hermeneutic outlook (it's not required to answer questions of exegetical conflicts), the Church is quite clear that error and manipulation can and do occur in scripture.

7. Are you aware of any warnings from any LDS Church presidents or prophets, or any of the GAs, about the error of reading the extrabiblical scriptures of the LDS Church as univocal? Have any leaders of the LDS Church ever taught that the books in the Book of Mormon cannot be assumed to reflect a coherent theological position, or that it is a mistake to assume that the Book of Abraham will agree with the Book of Moses, or that Joseph's later revelations in D&C correct or supplant some of the earlier revelations in D&C?

Not that I'm aware of. How is this relevant to my personal rejection of a univocal reading of the Bible?

8. Do you approach the interpretation of the scriptures according to the teachings of the living prophets, or according to your own academic standards--or do you see no conflict between the two?

An academic and a devotional approach to scripture operate under quite distinct methodological frameworks. I approach my interpretations according to the framework.

It appears my suspicions were correct. I'd personally like to see you defend a univocal reading of the Bible rather than try to paint me into a corner of Mormon orthodoxy where you think you're going to get trap me against my desire to not look like a heretic in front of the other Mormons so I have to admit I look at LDS scriptures univocally, which will somehow suddenly make the Bible inerrant again. Can I look forward to such an argument, or do you recognize the futility of it?

[Zakuska]

1. The point keeps being made that this is a bad way to read the Bible, but I never hear any Mormon warning about the dangers of reading the Book of Mormon or the other LDS scriptures as univocal. One Mormon here (Dan) admitted, when I asked him, that on his view it would also be a mistake to read the LDS scriptures as univocal, but this was a grudging concession at best. I would like to ask: Do you think Mormons should read the LDS scriptures (the "Triple Combination") univocally? In your own reading of the scriptures, do you assume, at least as a working assumption, that the Book of Mormon will agree with the Book of Abraham? Do you assume that 1 Nephi will agree with Moroni?

No. I do not agree. Even Peter and Paul disagreed on doctrines and practice in the early church. There wasn't even a true coherency when Christ himself was teaching the Apostles, they often argued among themselves what certian teachings meant.

In fact... contradiction is a famous Hebrew Literary construct to unveil a deeper meaning.

Here is the book of proverbs with an example:

Prov 26

4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

On face value the teaching is incoherent. Are we suposed to answer fools or not?

[mapman]

The Old Testament isn't anywhere near to the original inspired texts. I believe that the earliest copies of Old Tesrament books are from the Dead Sea scrolls which are shortly before Christ (correct me if I'm mistaken). That's centuries after they were first written. I'd guess that they were preserved remarkably well as ancient documents go, but I find it hard to believe that they would have escaped some change from uninspired hands. As for the New Testament, compared to most people at the time, Jesus' sayings are very well documented. I'd say that the New Testament is probably very close to what it should be. As for the modernly revealed scriptures, I do not think that they have escaped scribal errors either (it wasn't too long ago when we figured out Amlicites and Amalekites were the same people), but I think that they are extremely close to what they are supposed to be and probably doctrinaly perfect.

[David T]

Since an increasing number of LDS participants here seem to feel that they are on very solid ground in disputing the validity of reading the Bible as "univocal" (that is, as coherent in its teachings), I have some questions on this issue.

1. The point keeps being made that this is a bad way to read the Bible, but I never hear any Mormon warning about the dangers of reading the Book of Mormon or the other LDS scriptures as univocal. One Mormon here (Dan) admitted, when I asked him, that on his view it would also be a mistake to read the LDS scriptures as univocal, but this was a grudging concession at best. I would like to ask: Do you think Mormons should read the LDS scriptures (the "Triple Combination") univocally? In your own reading of the scriptures, do you assume, at least as a working assumption, that the Book of Mormon will agree with the Book of Abraham? Do you assume that 1 Nephi will agree with Moroni?

I don't take for granted that Moses and the Book of Mormon will agree in all particulars. I believe a key part of understanding the prophetic role is understanding that God doesn't give all knowledge - as well as the means and experiences to perfectly transmit it - to every prophet, and that prophets tends to draw conclusions based on the knowledge they do have - which is not always 100% accurate, or complete. There's a learning curve, and culture and preconceived notions play into the composition of even texts that have as their source a pure revelation to the individual. In other words, we don't view Prophets as Fax Machines, always dictating grammatically verbatim the words of God. It's more like a game of telephone.

2. Assuming that you take the view that none of the scriptures should be read as univocal, would it then follow that from your perspective we should be neither surprised nor troubled if, say, the Book of Abraham contradicted the Book of Moses?

Exactly. The Prophet through whom we recieved them changed a great deal in his knowledge and experiences from the time one was produced to the other. That development and change would have an effect in the production of the revelation.

3. Hypothetically, if the texts of the 66 books that constitute the Protestant canon of the Bible were perfectly preserved, would your objections to reading the Bible univocally be moot? In other words, is your criticism of reading the Bible univocally grounded on the belief that the texts have been imperfectly transmitted?

Nope. Prophets are imperfect people who receive pure light and knowledge from God, and then express that in their own words, through their own limited experience. Transmission issues just serve to muddy the degree of transmission further.

4. Granted for the sake of discussion that you do not view the whole Bible as univocal, would you tend to view a single author in the Bible, or a single book in the Bible, as internally coherent, or do you dismiss the internal coherence of each book of the Bible as well as the coherence of the Bible as a whole?

For the most part, yes. It depends on the length of time writing, and the type of work. For the most part, the individual prophetic books, as well as the Pauline Epistles, are internally consistent. If Isaiah, for instance, is viewed as being a single author, I feel there are some significant changes in direction and understanding from the latter part of the book carrying his name from the former. The Genesis - 2 Kings History, however, is very internally inconsistent.

5. Suppose, hypothetically speaking, that a reader approached the Bible as univocal, carefully read the whole Bible from that perspective, and made every effort to develop a unified theological outlook or system that integrated as much as possible the teachings of all of the books of the Bible. Would you think that such a theological system would look more like an LDS doctrinal system or more like an evangelical Protestant doctrinal system?

Probably more like the Jehovah's Witness system, to be honest. IMHO, they do the best job in all the 'Bible Only' camps of providing a coherent and fully developed theology that accounts for pretty much everything, and applies the entire canon in its development.

6. In the doctrinally oriented curricula published by the LDS Church, such as Gospel Principles, quotations and citations from all of the Standard Works are presented side by side in support of LDS doctrinal positions. One may typically see such publications citing texts from the Old Testament, the Book of Mormon, D&C, and the Book of Abraham, and using these texts to develop a coherent theological narrative or doctrinal concept. Is this a legitimate practice, or is the LDS Church curricula also guilty of illegitimately reading the scriptures as univocal?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. While some doctrines are clear and prevalent in each standard work, and can be cited from such, it does not mean that all the scriptures teach all the things similarly in its original understanding or context (such as the nature of life after death, etc). However, certain elements of the following responses also can apply, depending on the topic under discussion in the publication:

7. Are you aware of any warnings from any LDS Church presidents or prophets, or any of the GAs, about the error of reading the extrabiblical scriptures of the LDS Church as univocal? Have any leaders of the LDS Church ever taught that the books in the Book of Mormon cannot be assumed to reflect a coherent theological position, or that it is a mistake to assume that the Book of Abraham will agree with the Book of Moses, or that Joseph's later revelations in D&C correct or supplant some of the earlier revelations in D&C?

Most Church members don't have an academic interest in the scriptures, and are not familiar with ancient customs and linguistics. They go to them with the spirit to seek spiritual answers to personal and individual questions. I believe that with the spirit, scriptures that are removed from an understanding of their context can teach unrelated personal truths to individuals with the guidance of the spirit. These are for personal actions, and not as doctrinal-defining or historical revelations.

8. Do you approach the interpretation of the scriptures according to the teachings of the living prophets, or according to your own academic standards--or do you see no conflict between the two?

Both. As above, it's common prophetic practice to take scripture out of its original context and re-apply it for present day needs and circumstances, to give the original words a new insight, although not necessarily originally intended.

[Obiwan]

Since an increasing number of LDS participants here seem to feel that they are on very solid ground in disputing the validity of reading the Bible as "univocal" (that is, as coherent in its teachings), I have some questions on this issue.

Who in the world here thinks that the Bible is not "univocal"??? I don't think any LDS does.

Your assuming facts not in evidence. LDS understanding that there is error, and understanding that man creates their own interpretations from the less clear and error is not the same as believing the Bible does not or is not capable of "coherancy". I think it's perfectly coherant from my level of comprehension and observation. So much so, that I saw the LDS Church fully from the Bible (and no other religion) long before I even knew of the LDS Church. So, don't confuse the two subjects please.... The problem is, is because of the error and the level of comprehension needed to see EVERYTHING "clearly" in it, most humans error from it, creating their own religions, their own doctrines, ignore parts which contradict said dogmas, meaning having not the fullness thereof. Only the LDS Church fully believes what the Bible teaches.

Of course, that is if I'm understanding what you mean by "univocal".

UPDATE: Reading the thread I see more what your talking about. The above is still valid, but I wanted to add and clarify as I do below also on the same idea, that scriptures often contradict each other, but taken as a whole, and seeing the full picture the truth can be known, and there becomes really no contradiction as to the ultimate truth.

Take the "God is Spirit" scripture.... Well, most Christians take that statement and then create a doctrine in which the statement says nothing about, that is in relation to Gods full nature (by stating He is Spirit only). Because in reading other scriptures, one can see that God the Father would clearly have to be more like Christ, as well man is spirit in other scriptures, but not only spirit per other scripture. So, to claim that the Father is ONLY spirit, is first adding to the Word of God, and second is actually not true per other statements of scripture. If it's not clear to most what nature God is, then best to say you don't know, but to ADD to the Word by creating a doctrine from a statement that the statement was never meant to be saying in the first place is clearly bad mojo.

1. The point keeps being made that this is a bad way to read the Bible, but I never hear any Mormon warning about the dangers of reading the Book of Mormon or the other LDS scriptures as univocal. One Mormon here (Dan) admitted, when I asked him, that on his view it would also be a mistake to read the LDS scriptures as univocal, but this was a grudging concession at best. I would like to ask: Do you think Mormons should read the LDS scriptures (the "Triple Combination") univocally? In your own reading of the scriptures, do you assume, at least as a working assumption, that the Book of Mormon will agree with the Book of Abraham? Do you assume that 1 Nephi will agree with Moroni?

All scripture together is able to coalese, even if there is some seeming differences at first glance to the untrained eye. All of us have seen things and wondered, but then we look deeper into the teaching, into the scriptures for the actual answer. That is actually one of the reasons that anti-mormonism is a joke to us, is because we see much more BEYOND (in scripture and in LDS history, teachings, etc.) your simplistic and elementary no matter how "learned" arguments.

2. Assuming that you take the view that none of the scriptures should be read as univocal, would it then follow that from your perspective we should be neither surprised nor troubled if, say, the Book of Abraham contradicted the Book of Moses?

As I said above, sometimes some things may seem contradictory, but a deeper look and they are in fact not.

3. Hypothetically, if the texts of the 66 books that constitute the Protestant canon of the Bible were perfectly preserved, would your objections to reading the Bible univocally be moot? In other words, is your criticism of reading the Bible univocally grounded on the belief that the texts have been imperfectly transmitted?

If you look at the last sentance of the Title Page of the Book of Mormon you will see a statement that says that LDS do not consider ANY scripture to be infallible. Latter-day scripture is simply the "most correct" as Joseph once said, because it is modern revelation with little of the hands of men messing things up.

Basically, all scripture for us is compared and contrasted and it all fits together. Minor mistakes do not change the big picture. The Bible of course has a number of minor and major mistakes, so one has to be more careful in reading it, especially when they ONLY have it, no additional scripture or revelations and modern prophets to make clear a thing. Of course, the truth of most issues can still be seen, it just may take a little more digging. This is one reason why LDS like C.S. Lewis so much. He was a genius, and one of a few non-LDS who was almost LDS in understanding the scriptures. There are other great Christians sometimes here and there whom if they only knew of the Church to any significant degree, would be LDS. But, if not in this life, they certainly are in the next.

The Fullness of the Gospel of Christ can be known by the Bible, it just can be harder, especially when you got all these man-made religions telling you what the Bible actually teaches and thus misleading generations of people, people such as you. Of course, the Fullness of the Gospel in the Bible sense does not necessarily refer to every so far revealed Gospel Truth and Ordainance, but, that's part of what the latter-day scriptures and revelations are for.

4. Granted for the sake of discussion that you do not view the whole Bible as univocal, would you tend to view a single author in the Bible, or a single book in the Bible, as internally coherent, or do you dismiss the internal coherence of each book of the Bible as well as the coherence of the Bible as a whole?

The Bible IS "coherant" to us.... Otherwise we wouldn't consider it the Word of God, and one of our Standard Works EQUAL with all others.

Our main issue with the Bible is the men who created it, not the Book itself. The phrase "as far as it is translated correctly" is more in reference to interpretation, not the book itself. It is an anti-mormon perversion of our views which makes us into Bible haters.

5. Suppose, hypothetically speaking, that a reader approached the Bible as univocal, carefully read the whole Bible from that perspective, and made every effort to develop a unified theological outlook or system that integrated as much as possible the teachings of all of the books of the Bible. Would you think that such a theological system would look more like an LDS doctrinal system or more like an evangelical Protestant doctrinal system?

I think it depends on the person.... I think without the proper authority from God men will always fall short as to what the Fullness of His Truths are. There is a reason we look more like the Catholic Church and only a small degree like Protestants not only in our structure but our doctrines as well.

But, I think if it had been "me" who read just the Bible and nothing else, given that I knew the LDS Church from the Bible before I knew of it, I would have created a religion more like the LDS Church, not like any Protestant religion. Of course, there is another issue. Protestant religions or others aren't actually all that bad. They get a LOT right, of course, there is no consistency, a lot missing etc. etc., as well they get things wrong when they try to be anti-mormon by trying to make certain doctrines less incompatable between us then they actually are. Take the "we are saved by grace after all we can do" statement in the Book of Mormon. Anti's claim that is not doctrine. Well, that's not true, it's the same doctrine as the Law of the Harvest in the Bible. Just Google that phrase and there is a big article on the subject which is full of LDS teaching, specifically pay attention to Law 6, Law 6 is directly teaching that Book of Mormon statement. So, how is it not Biblical again???

So, this idea that mormonism is really so "different" than Biblical Christianity is for the most part insecurity and ignorance. We are much more alike than different. And I should know because I've been active in most of the major and many minor of your religions. I can see with my own eyes.....

6. In the doctrinally oriented curricula published by the LDS Church, such as Gospel Principles, quotations and citations from all of the Standard Works are presented side by side in support of LDS doctrinal positions. One may typically see such publications citing texts from the Old Testament, the Book of Mormon, D&C, and the Book of Abraham, and using these texts to develop a coherent theological narrative or doctrinal concept. Is this a legitimate practice, or is the LDS Church curricula also guilty of illegitimately reading the scriptures as univocal?

I still contend against your premise that LDS don't view the Bible as "univocal". I don't think you were understanding his point. Of course, maybe he wasn't thinking either, I don't know your interaction. But I've never seen LDS say what you're saying, and I've seen it all including some nut ball LDS who think like anti-mormons on a couple of issues.

7. Are you aware of any warnings from any LDS Church presidents or prophets, or any of the GAs, about the error of reading the extrabiblical scriptures of the LDS Church as univocal? Have any leaders of the LDS Church ever taught that the books in the Book of Mormon cannot be assumed to reflect a coherent theological position, or that it is a mistake to assume that the Book of Abraham will agree with the Book of Moses, or that Joseph's later revelations in D&C correct or supplant some of the earlier revelations in D&C?

Nope.... don't agree with your assumption.

8. Do you approach the interpretation of the scriptures according to the teachings of the living prophets, or according to your own academic standards--or do you see no conflict between the two?

No conflict at all between the two..... The rare nuance, such as ones anti-mormons would pick up on, but those when looked into deeper are still able to be understood in their actual context according to LDS beliefs. Like the Lamanite DNA issue. Neither the DNA nor LDS leaders statements on the Blood of Israel and/or Lehi are wrong.

Hope I helped clear some things for you....

[mfbukowski]

The nightly news is not univocal- why should any ancient text be univocal?

Everything ever written by anybody in a natural language is ambiguous and subject to interpretation. Just look at the different interpretations of the OP already generated.

If you are not following the spirit- there is no way to understand any of it.

[Obiwan]

The nightly news is not univocal- why should any ancient text be univocal?

Everything ever written by anybody in a natural language is ambiguous and subject to interpretation. Just look at the different interpretations of the OP already generated.

If you are not following the spirit- there is no way to understand any of it.

True.... but if you are speaking in a "general" sense, then I would say there is coherency in the Bible. Really it just depends on what the OP is really trying to get at, so all the answers kind of reflect different approaches to addressing the question. But, you're right also.... Just depends. haa haa

[Brade]

Interesting topic and questions. I have to admit that I've haven't given this topic much thought. Here are my answers sort of off the top of my head. I hope they illuminate something for you...and me.

1. Do you think Mormons should read the LDS scriptures (the "Triple Combination") univocally? In your own reading of the scriptures, do you assume, at least as a working assumption, that the Book of Mormon will agree with the Book of Abraham? Do you assume that 1 Nephi will agree with Moroni?

In my own reading of the LDS scriptures I don't assume coherence. I'm not sure what to say about how Mormons ought to read the scriptures. Perhaps if I give this more thought and flesh out my own view I'd be inclined to think Mormons ought not assume coherence.

2. Assuming that you take the view that none of the scriptures should be read as univocal, would it then follow that from your perspective we should be neither surprised nor troubled if, say, the Book of Abraham contradicted the Book of Moses?

Hmmmm, I'm not sure if that follows. Maybe it does. Right after reading the above question I thought of an odd sort of story. I thought of my neighborhood and how I don't assume that everyone in my neighborhood lives the same sort of lifestyle. However, I imagine that if I went door to door in an effort to get to know everyone, and at an ordinary looking house I was greeted by a cross dresser with a synthetic ice wall in his living room, I'd be quite surprised; despite my prior assumption that the lifestyles of my neighbors are varied. Maybe that isn't a fitting analogy; it's just what popped in my head after reading #2. In any event, I want to say that even if one accepts non-univocality, I don't think that precludes being surprised or troubled when one happens upon something surprising or troubling. And perhaps an outright contradiction is surprising and/or troubling.

3. Hypothetically, if the texts of the 66 books that constitute the Protestant canon of the Bible were perfectly preserved, would your objections to reading the Bible univocally be moot? In other words, is your criticism of reading the Bible univocally grounded on the belief that the texts have been imperfectly transmitted?

No. Because even if the texts were perfectly preserved I might still be inclined to think that the authors' own non-inspired views are mixed in with inspired stuff, and that that might lead to contradiction.

4. Granted for the sake of discussion that you do not view the whole Bible as univocal, would you tend to view a single author in the Bible, or a single book in the Bible, as internally coherent, or do you dismiss the internal coherence of each book of the Bible as well as the coherence of the Bible as a whole?

Hmmm, I do tend to assume some level of coherence within books of scripture.

5. Suppose, hypothetically speaking, that a reader approached the Bible as univocal, carefully read the whole Bible from that perspective, and made every effort to develop a unified theological outlook or system that integrated as much as possible the teachings of all of the books of the Bible. Would you think that such a theological system would look more like an LDS doctrinal system or more like an evangelical Protestant doctrinal system?

That's a tough one, but I actually happen to think that such a theological system would look more like an evangelical Protestant doctrinal system. I want to make note that that isn't to say I think it would look totally like an evangelical Protestant doctrinal system.

6. In the doctrinally oriented curricula published by the LDS Church, such as Gospel Principles, quotations and citations from all of the Standard Works are presented side by side in support of LDS doctrinal positions. One may typically see such publications citing texts from the Old Testament, the Book of Mormon, D&C, and the Book of Abraham, and using these texts to develop a coherent theological narrative or doctrinal concept. Is this a legitimate practice, or is the LDS Church curricula also guilty of illegitimately reading the scriptures as univocal?

I'm inclined to say that that is a legitimate practice and that it doesn't tell us anything about the Church's view on univocality. But, perhaps this shows that I don't quite understand what you mean by 'univocal'. It seems to me consistent with an anti-univocal position that some teachings or stories will "line up"; but not all. And, I can imagine a situation where there are two types of teachings, A and B, where A and B are contradictory, but instances of A are found throughout the canon and instances of B are found throughout the canon. The LDS Church might then teach that A is true, in virtue of some putative revelation on the matter, and then point out instances of A in their canon. Or, they might be univocalist about the scriptures and, by way of some putative revelation, accept A and explain B as just some mistake (intentional or not) that actually means A. I think the Church actually takes the second route. But, my point is, I'm not sure the Church's curricula reveals whether the Church is univocalist or not, since I think their curricula is consistent with a univocalist and anti-univocalist position.

7. Are you aware of any warnings from any LDS Church presidents or prophets, or any of the GAs, about the error of reading the extrabiblical scriptures of the LDS Church as univocal? Have any leaders of the LDS Church ever taught that the books in the Book of Mormon cannot be assumed to reflect a coherent theological position, or that it is a mistake to assume that the Book of Abraham will agree with the Book of Moses, or that Joseph's later revelations in D&C correct or supplant some of the earlier revelations in D&C?

I'm not aware of such warnings. Although I do think I've read statements that seem to hint at the opposite view.

8. Do you approach the interpretation of the scriptures according to the teachings of the living prophets, or according to your own academic standards--or do you see no conflict between the two?

I think I use some mix of the two methods of interpretation. Also, I do see conflict between academic interpretation and prophetic interpretation.

[Vance]

5. Suppose, hypothetically speaking, that a reader approached the Bible as univocal, carefully read the whole Bible from that perspective, and made every effort to develop a unified theological outlook or system that integrated as much as possible the teachings of all of the books of the Bible. Would you think that such a theological system would look more like an LDS doctrinal system or more like an evangelical Protestant doctrinal system?

I think that depends on which author/speaker you place in preeminence.

If you assume portions of Paul's epistles are preeminent, then it would be more like the evangelical Protestant doctrinal system.

But if you assume the preeminence of Jesus' teachings, (then Peter, James and John) and then reconcile the words of Paul, it would look more like the LDS doctrinal system.

It depends on whose words you place in preeminence.

Edited to add,

I think there are some verses that indicate which approach should be used.

Deu 18: 15

[zerinus]

Since an increasing number of LDS participants here seem to feel that they are on very solid ground in disputing the validity of reading the Bible as "univocal" (that is, as coherent in its teachings), I have some questions on this issue.

1. The point keeps being made that this is a bad way to read the Bible, but I never hear any Mormon warning about the dangers of reading the Book of Mormon or the other LDS scriptures as univocal. One Mormon here (Dan) admitted, when I asked him, that on his view it would also be a mistake to read the LDS scriptures as univocal, but this was a grudging concession at best. I would like to ask: Do you think Mormons should read the LDS scriptures (the "Triple Combination") univocally? In your own reading of the scriptures, do you assume, at least as a working assumption, that the Book of Mormon will agree with the Book of Abraham? Do you assume that 1 Nephi will agree with Moroni?

2. Assuming that you take the view that none of the scriptures should be read as univocal, would it then follow that from your perspective we should be neither surprised nor troubled if, say, the Book of Abraham contradicted the Book of Moses?

3. Hypothetically, if the texts of the 66 books that constitute the Protestant canon of the Bible were perfectly preserved, would your objections to reading the Bible univocally be moot? In other words, is your criticism of reading the Bible univocally grounded on the belief that the texts have been imperfectly transmitted?

4. Granted for the sake of discussion that you do not view the whole Bible as univocal, would you tend to view a single author in the Bible, or a single book in the Bible, as internally coherent, or do you dismiss the internal coherence of each book of the Bible as well as the coherence of the Bible as a whole?

5. Suppose, hypothetically speaking, that a reader approached the Bible as univocal, carefully read the whole Bible from that perspective, and made every effort to develop a unified theological outlook or system that integrated as much as possible the teachings of all of the books of the Bible. Would you think that such a theological system would look more like an LDS doctrinal system or more like an evangelical Protestant doctrinal system?

6. In the doctrinally oriented curricula published by the LDS Church, such as Gospel Principles, quotations and citations from all of the Standard Works are presented side by side in support of LDS doctrinal positions. One may typically see such publications citing texts from the Old Testament, the Book of Mormon, D&C, and the Book of Abraham, and using these texts to develop a coherent theological narrative or doctrinal concept. Is this a legitimate practice, or is the LDS Church curricula also guilty of illegitimately reading the scriptures as univocal?

7. Are you aware of any warnings from any LDS Church presidents or prophets, or any of the GAs, about the error of reading the extrabiblical scriptures of the LDS Church as univocal? Have any leaders of the LDS Church ever taught that the books in the Book of Mormon cannot be assumed to reflect a coherent theological position, or that it is a mistake to assume that the Book of Abraham will agree with the Book of Moses, or that Joseph's later revelations in D&C correct or supplant some of the earlier revelations in D&C?

8. Do you approach the interpretation of the scriptures according to the teachings of the living prophets, or according to your own academic standards--or do you see no conflict between the two?

I would need a more accurate definition of the word "univocal" as used in this context before I can say I agree with it or not; but if it means that the Bible (or scripture in general, including LDS scripture) teach a consistent theology, then I would agree. I am convinced that the scriptures do teach a consistent theology.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I certainly agree that Jesus Christ is preeminent in the Christian faith. But your argument presumes that Paul and Jesus don't agree. I maintain that they do agree.

I also maintain that Jesus and Paul did different types of teaching. Jesus taught in parables, apocalyptic discourses, and provocative sayings, and rarely engaged in what one would call theological discourse or exposition. Paul's writings are often directly theological and expositional. Also, since Paul wrote after Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension, his teaching looked back on those events and interpreted their significance for us, whereas Jesus' teachings anticipated those events but did not expound at length on their significance. These differences need to be taken into account when we talk about the role of Jesus' teaching and Paul's teaching in Christian theology.

If you think about it, Mormons also assign some "priority" to the apostolic, post-resurrection teaching of Jesus' apostles to interpret the Christian faith. For example, LDS religion accepts the apostolic teaching that the coming of Christ has made the Mosaic ritual obligations and sacrificial system obsolete. That is, Mormons do not require their boys to be circumcised, do not observe the religious holy days of Judaism, do not offer burnt offerings as sacrifices, and so forth. In these matters, Mormons are following Paul and Hebrews, and they interpret Jesus' teachings in the Gospels to fit (since Jesus never said anything explicitly to indicate these practices should cease).

Finally, the only theological area that I can see where Mormons might claim that their doctrine is closer to that of Jesus while evangelical Protestant doctrine is closer to Paul would be in the area of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). I'm guessing you think that Jesus taught that works were necessary for salvation, whereas you can see why evangelicals think Paul did not. I don't agree that Jesus and Paul had different doctrines on this subject, although again they approached it from different sides of the Cross.

I think that depends on which author/speaker you place in preeminence.

If you assume portions of Paul's epistles are preeminent, then it would be more like the evangelical Protestant doctrinal system.

But if you assume the preeminence of Jesus' teachings, (then Peter, James and John) and then reconcile the words of Paul, it would look more like the LDS doctrinal system.

It depends on whose words you place in preeminence.

Edited to add,

I think there are some verses that indicate which approach should be used.

Deu 18: 15

[David T]

If you think about it, Mormons also assign some "priority" to the apostolic, post-resurrection teaching of Jesus' apostles to interpret the Christian faith. For example, LDS religion accepts the apostolic teaching that the coming of Christ has made the Mosaic ritual obligations and sacrificial system obsolete. That is, Mormons do not require their boys to be circumcised, do not observe the religious holy days of Judaism, do not offer burnt offerings as sacrifices, and so forth. In these matters, Mormons are following Paul and Hebrews, and they interpret Jesus' teachings in the Gospels to fit (since Jesus never said anything explicitly to indicate these practices should cease).

The Book of Mormon and D&C individually and specifically tackle these subjects as well, by the way.

[Vance]

I certainly agree that Jesus Christ is preeminent in the Christian faith.

Well, that is a good thing to say, but when I look at your theology, I don't find this statement to be accurate.

But your argument presumes that Paul and Jesus don't agree.

No, not at all. My argument is that YOUR interpretation of Paul doesn't agree with Jesus and the rest of the Apostles.

I maintain that they do agree.

Maintain away! That doesn't change the way I see it.

I also maintain that Jesus and Paul did different types of teaching. Jesus taught in parables, apocalyptic discourses, and provocative sayings, and rarely engaged in what one would call theological discourse or exposition. Paul's writings are often directly theological and expositional.

This may be true, but it is irrelevant to my position.

Also, since Paul wrote after Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension, his teaching looked back on those events and interpreted their significance for us, whereas Jesus' teachings anticipated those events but did not expound at length on their significance.

And what I see with that statement is an IMPLICIT admission that you indeed DO hold the (misinterpreted) teachings of Paul in preeminence over the clear and plain teachings of Jesus.

These differences need to be taken into account when we talk about the role of Jesus' teaching and Paul's teaching in Christian theology.

Again, just another IMPLICIT admission that you indeed DO hold the (misinterpreted) teachings of Paul in preeminence over the clear and plain teachings of Jesus.

If you think about it, Mormons also assign some "priority" to the apostolic, post-resurrection teaching of Jesus' apostles to interpret the Christian faith. For example, LDS religion accepts the apostolic teaching that the coming of Christ has made the Mosaic ritual obligations and sacrificial system obsolete.

Not a very strong argument since JESUS taught his fulfillment of the Mosaic law.

Matt. 5:17

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I don't mean this to sound disrespectful of you personally, but this is a useless argument. We both at least profess to agree that Christian doctrine should be consistent with the teachings of both Jesus and Paul. Paul's writings are Scripture. The Gospels, which present Jesus' teachings, are Scripture. It's all the word of God. I do not subscribe to the "red-letter edition" view that the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are more inspired than the words in black letters. Jesus is far, far superior to Paul, but the Gospels and the Epistles are equally Scripture. If my doctrine is unfaithful to the words of Jesus in the Gospels, it must also be unfaithful to the teachings of Paul, because the Gospels and the Epistles cannot contradict each other and still be Scripture.

You claim that I shoehorn the teachings of Jesus into what I misinterpret Paul to teach. But I could just as easily argue that your view of salvation shoehorns the teachings of Jesus in the Gospel of John into what you misinterpret the teachings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels to say. After all, in the Gospel of John, Jesus explicitly and repeatedly says that by believing in him we receive eternal life (John 3:15-18; 5:24; 6:40, 47; 11:25-26; 20:31). So I could ask you, which Jesus is it that you hold preeminent: the Jesus of the Synoptics or the Jesus of John? Of course, your answer should be that they are the same Jesus because there can only be one Jesus. Well, likewise, I hold that there is only one God, and therefore the God whose word is in the Epistles is the same God whose word is found in the Gospels.

Well, that is a good thing to say, but when I look at your theology, I don't find this statement to be accurate.

No, not at all. My argument is that YOUR interpretation of Paul doesn't agree with Jesus and the rest of the Apostles.

Maintain away! That doesn't change the way I see it.

This may be true, but it is irrelevant to my position.

And what I see with that statement is an IMPLICIT admission that you indeed DO hold the (misinterpreted) teachings of Paul in preeminence over the clear and plain teachings of Jesus.

Again, just another IMPLICIT admission that you indeed DO hold the (misinterpreted) teachings of Paul in preeminence over the clear and plain teachings of Jesus.

Not a very strong argument since JESUS taught his fulfillment of the Mosaic law.

Matt. 5:17

[Vance]

I don't mean this to sound disrespectful of you personally, but this is a useless argument. We both at least profess to agree that Christian doctrine should be consistent with the teachings of both Jesus and Paul. Paul's writings are Scripture. The Gospels, which present Jesus' teachings, are Scripture. It's all the word of God.

I won't waste our time quibbling with some of the things you state here.

I do not subscribe to the "red-letter edition" view that the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are more inspired than the words in black letters.

I already explain why I disagree with this approach. I would also add that Jesus was perfect, sinless and more intelligent that Paul. I also believe that Jesus was better at communicating plainly and clearly what He wanted to convey.

Paul, obviously, was less talented in this respect, AND so to the point that this was written as a warning.

2 Peter 3:15 . . . even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Well if something is "hard to be understood", doesn't that mean that it is easy to be MISunderstood?

Jesus is far, far superior to Paul, but the Gospels and the Epistles are equally Scripture.

An explicit admission that you don't hold the words of Jesus in preeminence to all others.

If my doctrine is unfaithful to the words of Jesus in the Gospels, it must also be unfaithful to the teachings of Paul, because the Gospels and the Epistles cannot contradict each other and still be Scripture.

I agree!!!!

And that is why I reject your interpretation of Paul.

You claim that I shoehorn the teachings of Jesus into what I misinterpret Paul to teach.

That is EXACTLY what I claim!

But I could just as easily argue that your view of salvation shoehorns the teachings of Jesus in the Gospel of John into what you misinterpret the teachings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels to say. After all, in the Gospel of John, Jesus explicitly and repeatedly says that by believing in him we receive eternal life (John 3:15-18; 5:24; 6:40, 47; 11:25-26; 20:31).

And I would respond with this question.

Can you believe IN Jesus without believing, doing, and obeying what Jesus taught?

(Or is believing IN Jesus, just lip service)?

So I could ask you, which Jesus is it that you hold preeminent: the Jesus of the Synoptics or the Jesus of John?

When properly understood, there is no conflict between them. So, what you are presenting here is a false choice.

Of course, your answer should be that they are the same Jesus because there can only be one Jesus.

Yup!

Well, likewise, I hold that there is only one God, and therefore the God whose word is in the Epistles is the same God whose word is found in the Gospels.

That is an EXPLICIT admission that you don't hold the words of Jesus in preeminence.

[mfbukowski]

I'm guessing you think that Jesus taught that works were necessary for salvation, whereas you can see why evangelicals think Paul did not.

Works are not necessary for "salvation" depending of course on what you mean by that word- we are ultimately saved by grace; we are rewarded according to our works. And I think most EV's would agree that Billy Graham (assuming his heart is as he behaves externally- of course only God knows that) will receive more jewels in his crown than a child raping murderer who genuinely accepted Christ on his death bed.

But of course I could be wrong, and I suppose that is a subject for another thread.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

I would also add that Jesus was perfect, sinless and more intelligent that Paul. I also believe that Jesus was better at communicating plainly and clearly what He wanted to convey.

Paul, obviously, was less talented in this respect, AND so to the point that this was written as a warning.

2 Peter 3:15 . . . even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Well if something is "hard to be understood", doesn't that mean that it is easy to be MISunderstood?

Indeed. Nevertheless, those who misunderstand Paul's epistles so as to teach destructive doctrine, Peter says, "are unlearned and unstable," and they "wrest" (twist) what Paul says and the rest of the Scriptures. But whereas some of the things Paul wrote turned out to hard to understand, Jesus stated that what he taught publicly was presented with the expectation (if not the intention) that people would not understand!

"And he said to them, 'To you has been given the secretof the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that "they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven"'" (Mark 4:11-12).

Kind of makes you think, doesn't it?

You commented:

An explicit admission that you don't hold the words of Jesus in preeminence to all others.... That is an EXPLICIT admission that you don't hold the words of Jesus in preeminence.

No. I maintain that the words of the Lord Jesus are found in all of the books of the New Testament, not just in the sayings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels. Thus, Paul's words are the word of the Lord.

You asked:

Can you believe IN Jesus without believing, doing, and obeying what Jesus taught? (Or is believing IN Jesus, just lip service)?

The answer to your second question is No. Your first question is too vaguely worded, because it isn't clear what you mean by "without." The evangelical position is that those who truly trust in Jesus as Lord and Savior will be born again, indwelled by the Spirit, and led by the Spirit, producing a changed life that exhibits itself in good works (in varying degrees). If good works do not materialize, that is an indicator that the profession of faith is false. At the same time, those good works are not the ground or basis of salvation. Rather, they are the fruit, the result, of a saved relationship with God in Christ.

[Confidential Informant]

the Gospels and the Epistles cannot contradict each other and still be Scripture.

Says who?

What is the authority for this statement? I see none.

C.I.

[Zakuska]

Says who?

What is the authority for this statement? I see none.

C.I.

Tell me about it!

The book of proverbs contradicts itself nearly on every line.

Prov. 26: 4-5

4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

So what are we supposed to do? Answer a Fool or not?

[Vance]

Indeed. Nevertheless, those who misunderstand Paul's epistles . . .

Like Evangelicals, such as yourself.

. . .so as to teach destructive doctrine,

Like Evangelicals, such as yourself.

Peter says, "are unlearned and unstable," and they "wrest" (twist) what Paul says and the rest of the Scriptures.

Like Evangelicals, such as yourself.

But whereas some of the things Paul wrote turned out to hard to understand, Jesus stated that what he taught publicly was presented with the expectation (if not the intention) that people would not understand!

Like Evangelicals, such as yourself.

"And he said to them, 'To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that "they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven"'" (Mark 4:11-12).

True

Kind of makes you think, doesn't it?

That you have it wrong, yes it does.

No. I maintain that the words of the Lord Jesus are found in all of the books of the New Testament, not just in the sayings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels. Thus, Paul's words are the word of the Lord.

Of course you believe this, and you would be wrong.

Paul doesn't claim that all of his words are the Lords, or scripture or even inspired.

He takes responsibility for each of his epistles. He puts HIS name on them all.

The answer to your second question is No.

And yet many of your coreligionists like to say that just a confession (lip service) is all you need.

Your first question is too vaguely worded, because it isn't clear what you mean by "without."

Well then,

Can you believe IN Jesus without believing what Jesus taught?

Can you believe IN Jesus without doing what Jesus taught?

Can you believe IN Jesus without obeying what Jesus taught?

Does that clear it up?

The evangelical position is that those who truly trust in Jesus as Lord and Savior will be born again, indwelled by the Spirit, and led by the Spirit, producing a changed life that exhibits itself in good works (in varying degrees). If good works do not materialize, that is an indicator that the profession of faith is false. At the same time, those good works are not the ground or basis of salvation. Rather, they are the fruit, the result, of a saved relationship with God in Christ.

And yet the scripture teach that (Acts 5:32) And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Or in other words OBEDIENCE is the key to receiving the Holy Ghost.

This is what Jesus taught here

Matt. 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness (obedience): for they shall be filled with the Holy Ghost.

But, in a way, you are admitting what James taught, faith without works is dead.

[Rob Bowman]

C.I.,

I had said that the Gospels and the Epistles cannot contradict each other and still both be Scripture. You commented:

Says who?

What is the authority for this statement? I see none.

Is Scripture the word of God?

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

Tell me about it!

The book of proverbs contradicts itself nearly on every line.

Prov. 26: 4-5

4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

So what are we supposed to do? Answer a Fool or not?

Hmm. I'm trying to decide just how I should answer you....

Why is it that you guys seem to have tons of examples of these problems in the Bible, but not in the LDS scriptures?

And are you kidding about Proverbs 26:4-5? Do you suppose that the compiler of Proverbs put these two proverbs side by side and didn't notice the apparent verbal contradiction? Try to think about this a little instead of just seizing on anything to support your disdain for the authority of the Bible.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

Why is it that you guys seem to have tons of examples of these problems in the Bible, but not in the LDS scriptures?

You guys? Well I guess I never really responded in this thread so it obviously isn't directed to me. But the big deal is that when talking about biblical inerrancy, for me, it is easy to say that that idea is not biblical.

Of course on another note that is probably more related is that what most of "you guys" are really trying to do is to show that in some cases a double standard is employeed. THat is that some Evangelical types hold the bible to a different standard than they do the LDS scriptures. Is that the case with you here? I don't think so.