Is the Sunday School Manual Off Base Here?

[katherine the great]

This is along the lines that I was thinking when I mentioned evidence to believe otherwise, KTG. Laban was an idol worshipper, and we know that Rachel stole his idols from him when Jacob took his family and flocks and unceremoniously fled from Laban to Canaan.

In other words, Laban was a member of Abraham's family, and it certainly appears that he was not of Abraham's faith. Possibly so with Rebekah, though there may have been political motives in her theft of Laban's idols. (By the way, this would be another act by an OT character that I would not want to have to defend on 21st century Mormon moral grounds. . . or should we suppose God told Rachel to steal the idols?) At any rate, there is nothing in the OT to indicate that Abraham's faith would have matriculated back to his family members in the old country, and several textual clues to indicate otherwise.

I don't recommend straying from the recommended course in class because it is really hard to draw an exact parallel to Abraham's situation (and because you aren't supposed to), but... The Book of Abraham (and I think Genesis also) does say Abraham left Haran for Canaan with "all the souls" they had won in Haran. If Nahor had come around to Abraham's faith, why didn't he go with him? We know why Terah stayed--because he had returned to his idol worshipping. It is just my opinion that they did not practice Abraham's faith in a single God, but they seemed to at least believe in Yahweh. For instance, when Abraham's servant presented his case to Rebecca's father Bethuel and brother Laban, they replied: "The thing proceedeth from the LORD: we cannot speak unto thee bad or good." It is my understanding that when "Lord" is spell with all caps in the King James version, it is actually saying "Yahweh." I believe that Nahor's descendants probably worshiped the God of Abraham (Yahweh) as well as the other local deities.

[katherine the great]

The sense I get is that he wanted a bride selected from the lineage, because, by and large, it was the righteous lineage. The wording in Abraham 1:2-5 promotes this understanding:

I do agree that it was about lineage. Whether it was actually a "righteous" lineage is an idea challenged throughout the scriptures, but it was definitely the chosen lineage.

[consiglieri]

The sense I get is that he wanted a bride selected from the lineage, because, by and large, it was the righteous lineage.

I agree with you on this; the patriarchal line is to be reestablished through Abraham, and hence the chosen lineage was of paramount importance.

But that seems to apply more to his sons than their wives.

The problem with Noah, and with Abraham, and with many righteous OT figures thereafter, is the proscription against intermarrying with the Canaanites.

It is a matter of race.

I think that a few decades ago, in the 1970's for example, the LDS Church would have likened this to the teaching that Mormons should not intermarry with those of other races, regardless of their religious affiliation.

That teaching has been abandoned to a large extent, however, but it would have been a teaching better illustrated by this OT story.

Instead, the LDS Church has in the last several decades focused more on marrying within the faith regardless of the spouse's race or lineage, and hence the manual takes liberties with this story to impose an interpretation on it that the point was for Isaac to marry someone of his own faith, rather than his own race.

It might have been better to just leave this story alone in that regard, but it is an interesting irony nonetheless.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Scott Lloyd]

I do agree that it was about lineage. Whether it was actually a "righteous" lineage is an idea challenged throughout the scriptures, but it was definitely the chosen lineage.

I don't see the "challenge" as all that compelling -- particularly when scriptures other than the Old Testament are considered..

Bottom line, I disagree that the Sunday School manual is "off base."

[consiglieri]

Bottom line, I disagree that the Sunday School manual if "off base."

In case it is not clear by now, the only reason I think the manual may be "off base" in this particular regard is in that it takes a story which teaches one thing according to the context, and then imposes an interpretation on it that is not suggested by the text (and is in fact contradicted by the text to some extent) in order to make it teach a lesson in harmony with 21st century Mormon Doctrine.

In so doing, we close off avenues of learning anything from the scriptures by making everything they have to say harmonize with what we already believe to be true.

We might as well read Elder McConkie's Mormon Doctrine every year in Sunday school class, because that is essentially what the manual is having us do.

And I suspect this may lie at the heart of the lack of interest by class members in reading the scriptures for themselves.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree with you on this; the patriarchal line is to be reestablished through Abraham, and hence the chosen lineage was of paramount importance.

But that seems to apply more to his sons than their wives.

The problem with Noah, and with Abraham, and with many righteous OT figures thereafter, is the proscription against intermarrying with the Canaanites.

It is a matter of race.

Do you have evidence that the principle of adoption into the covenant lineage was not in effect during Old Testament times? What about Ruth?

I think that a few decades ago, in the 1970's for example, the LDS Church would have likened this to the teaching that Mormons should not intermarry with those of other races, regardless of their religious affiliation.

That teaching has been abandoned to a large extent, however, but it would have been a teaching better illustrated by this OT story.

During a lifetime in the Church (and I've been around a while now), I've never seen this story about the selection of a bride for Isaac used to illustrate marrying within one's "race"; it has always been about marrying within the covenant.

Incidentally, "race" and "kindred" are not synonymous.

Instead, the LDS Church has in the last several decades focused more on marrying within the faith regardless of the spouse's race or lineage, and hence the manual takes liberties with this story to impose an interpretation on it that the point was for Isaac to marry someone of his own faith, rather than his own race.

It might have been better to just leave this story alone in that regard, but it is an interesting irony nonetheless.

See above. "Race" and "kindred" are not synonymous.

Though I can recall one or two expressions of opinion from this or that Church leader, I've never encountered a formal lesson or a sermon in the Church pertaining to interracial marriage.

[Scott Lloyd]

In case it is not clear by now, the only reason I think the manual may be "off base" in this particular regard is in that it takes a story which teaches one thing according to the context, and then imposes an interpretation on it that is not suggested by the text (and is in fact contradicted by the text to some extent) in order to make it teach a lesson in harmony with 21st century Mormon Doctrine.

In so doing, we close off avenues of learning anything from the scriptures by making everything they have to say harmonize with what we already believe to be true.

By "scriptures," you seem primarily to mean the Old Testament. I don't see that you have referred much to the Pearl of Great Price until I brought it up.

[katherine the great]

In this discussion, I note that your focus has been on the Old Testament. I don't see that you have referred much to the Pearl of Great Price until I brought it up.

Lol! The curriculum is the Old Testament!

[katherine the great]

I agree with you on this; the patriarchal line is to be reestablished through Abraham, and hence the chosen lineage was of paramount importance.

But that seems to apply more to his sons than their wives.

I might have to disagree with that. If the wife's lineage was not important then Ishmael would have succeeded Abraham. It seems pretty clear that the mother is of equal importance--at least at the beginning.

[Scott Lloyd]

Lol! The curriculum is the Old Testament!

Check your Class Member Study Guide. The focus in the early lessons is primarily on scriptures that have come to us via latter-day revelation, that is, the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price.

I like the Old Testament as far as it goes. But I believe in all that God has revealed (see Article of Faith 9).

[Calm]

27

[consiglieri]

By "scriptures," you seem primarily to mean the Old Testament. I don't see that you have referred much to the Pearl of Great Price until I brought it up.

I think the Book of Abraham gives us insights that help to inform and develop meaningfully our understanding of the Old Testament accounts.

But I am hesitant to say that just because the Book of Abraham has God commanding Abraham to lie, that takes precedence over the Old Testament account. Instead, I look at the PGP account as a variation of the OT story that may yield different insights than the OT account, but not necessarily as the final word on what "really happened."

By the way, I am not sure that having God tell Abraham to lie makes the story somehow more palatable, as it can be read as more reprehensible to modern LDS notions than the OT account.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I might have to disagree with that. If the wife's lineage was not important then Ishmael would have succeeded Abraham. It seems pretty clear that the mother is of equal importance--at least at the beginning.

A good point, KTG.

You may have something there . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[katherine the great]

Do you have evidence that the principle of adoption into the covenant lineage was not in effect during Old Testament times? What about Ruth?

This comment makes me wonder something. In Genesis 15 when Abraham was questioning God about his promised heir, he asked if "Eliezar of Damascus" was his promised heir. Of course God said "No" that the promised heir would be a physical son. I think that Abraham probably did believe that a person could be adopted in to the covenant--at least at that time in his life. I've always been kind of curious too why Abraham didn't ask if Lot was to be the heir instead of a Syrian.

[katherine the great]

Check your Class Member Study Guide.

Check the cover. It says Old Testament. It seems strange to criticize someone for focusing on the Old Testament when the Old Testament is the NAME of the curriculum.

[consiglieri]

I've always been kind of curious too why Abraham didn't ask if Lot was to be the heir instead of a Syrian.

Volgadon introduced me last week to some scholarly work, also reflected in the Oxford Cambridge Bible footnotes, that Abraham did see Lot as precisely that, but that Lot disinherited himself when he chose a land that was outside the promised land of Canaan.

These form a series of human attempts to help God keep his promise: (1) Lot; (2) Eliezer; (3) Ishmael. None of these three human attempts were the "right" answer. Ultimately it was God who kept his promise through a divine act of intervention that only God could perform.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Scott Lloyd]

I think the Book of Abraham gives us insights that help to inform and develop meaningfully our understanding of the Old Testament accounts.

Good. So do I.

But I am hesitant to say that just because the Book of Abraham has God commanding Abraham to lie, that takes precedence over the Old Testament account. Instead, I look at the PGP account as a variation of the OT story that may yield different insights than the OT account, but not necessarily as the final word on what "really happened."

By the way, I am not sure that having God tell Abraham to lie makes the story somehow more palatable, as it can be read as more reprehensible to modern LDS notions than the OT account.

Whatever. I've elected to stay out of that discussion (on the other thread), and I'm not inclined to join it now.

[Scott Lloyd]

Check the cover. It says Old Testament.

I know what the title of the course is. I'm saying that the curriculum (the word you used) includes relevant portions of the Pearl of Great Price, those that illuminate the limited content in the Old Testament. Likewise, the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History course also includes relevant portions of the Pearl of Great Price (Joseph Smith -- History and the Articles of Faith) even though the name of the book doesn't appear in the title. And I dare say that the New Testament course also includes a portion of the Pearl of Great Price (namely, Joseph Smith -- Matthew, which is an excerpt from the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible), even though the name "Pearl of Great Price" is not in the course title.

It seems strange to criticize someone for focusing on the Old Testament when the Old Testament is the NAME of the curriculum.

It's seeming to focus on it at the exclusion or minimization of other scripture that has come via latter-day revelation that bothers me.

[alter idem]

The text of the OT provides a perfectly good reason for Abraham to send back to the old country for a wive for Isaac, that being Noah's prophecy and curse on Canaan, that he would be a slave to Shem. Abraham, being a S(h)emite, would find it detestable to have his Shemite son marry a Canaanite woman, and hence sent back to get another Shemite woman for his wife.

This seems to be more a matter of race and lineage than finding a woman with the same religion. At least according to the Old Testament.

Hence this thread.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

My assumption was that he was sent back to get a wife of his own lineage--I believe the Canaanites could not hold the priesthood and so if he married a canaanite woman, it would mean his descendants wouldn't have the priesthood. Someone asked why he didn't get a wife from Melchizedek's group--I remember reading something in one of the commentaries that most likely this group was gone by this time and so he had to go back to Haran for a suitable wife.

It's certainly not politically correct, but that's the Old Testament for you.

[katherine the great]

It's seeming to focus on it at the exclusion or minimization of other scripture that has come via latter-day revelation that bothers me.

I think if you will review lesson 10 (the topic of this thread) you will see that they do not use any scriptures from latter day revelation to support the idea put forth that Abraham's intention was to have Isaac marry within his faith. The only references are Biblical and the Biblical references don't mention faith as the purpose--only family ties.

[alter idem]

I know what the title of the course is. I'm saying that the curriculum (the word you used) includes relevant portions of the Pearl of Great Price, those that illuminate the limited content in the Old Testament. Likewise, the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History course also includes relevant portions of the Pearl of Great Price (Joseph Smith -- History and the Articles of Faith) even though the name of the book doesn't appear in the title. And I dare say that the New Testament course also includes a portion of the Pearl of Great Price (namely, Joseph Smith -- Matthew, which is an excerpt from the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible), even though the name "Pearl of Great Price" is not in the course title.

It's seeming to focus on it at the exclusion or minimization of other scripture that has come via latter-day revelation that bothers me.

I think the Genesis and the Book of Abraham accounts should be considered together--I do not think that the Book of Abraham should take precedent over the Genesis version.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think if you will review lesson 10 (the topic of this thread) you will see that they do not use any scriptures from latter day revelation to support the idea put forth that Abraham's intention was to have Isaac marry within his faith. The only references are Biblical and the Biblical references don't mention faith as the purpose--only family ties.

But I was addressing Consiglieri's assertion that Abraham's faith was sui generis, a Latin expression meaning "of its own kind" or unique. I disagree that Abraham's religious faith was unique, and I cited the passage in Abraham to show it had been handed down from Adam and that there were likely other people on the earth at the time who adhered to his faith and from whom a suitable mate could be selected for Isaac.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think the Genesis and the Book of Abraham accounts should be considered together--I do not think that the Book of Abraham should take precedent over the Genesis version.

Where the Book of Abraham provides information and illumination that Genesis lacks, the Book of Abraham is paramount.

Moreover, Abraham, like the Book of Mormon, has come to us via direct revelation; Genesis, like the rest of the Bible, has not.

[alter idem]

But I was addressing Consiglieri's assertion that Abraham's faith was sui generis, a Latin expression meaning "of its own kind" or unique. I disagree that Abraham's religious faith was unique, and I cited the passage in Abraham to show it had been handed down from Adam and that there were likely other people on the earth at the time who adhered to his faith and from whom a suitable mate could be selected for Isaac.

I agree with you on this, though I suspect that those following the truth gospel were hard to find--it seems like this was a time of apostasy and with Abraham, God was setting his gospel back in order and doing so by establishing his covenant with Abraham and his 'seed' (those of his lineage and those who would become his 'seed' through adoption).

I do not have a problem with the manual wanting to use this example to suggest that Abraham wanted a wife for his son who shared their faith, but I would also point out to the class that this was not the only reason--lineage was important to them.

We do not concern ourselves with bloodlines today, but we do try to find mates who can take us to the temple.

This is what I taught my students when we covered this Old Testament event.

[alter idem]

Where the Book of Abraham provides information and illumination that Genesis lacks, the Book of Abraham is paramount.

Moreover, Abraham, like the Book of Mormon, has come to us via direct revelation; Genesis, like the rest of the Bible, has not.

That's your opinion. I do not happen to share it.

The Book of Abraham did not come to us in the same way as the Book of Mormon did, so I think I can choose to NOT put it in the same category as the Book of Mormon.