Soft Tyranny of LDS Bible Chapter Headings

[consiglieri]

Three times over as many months, students in our Gospel Doctrine class which I am (thankfully) no longer teaching have used the chapter headings in the LDS Bible as the last word on scriptural interpretation.

One incident had to do with the prophecy in Isaiah 51:11 that Israel would "return, and come with singing unto Zion." The teacher asked what this meant, and a student answered that it referred to the children of Israel returning at the end of the Babylonian captivity.

A different class member said, "Well, I don't claim to be all that smart, but the chapter heading says, In the last days, the Lord will comfort Zion and gather Israel. So this is talking about something that hasn't happened yet and is still in the future."

The most recent episode was last week when the teacher was talking about Ezekiel 37:15-20. I have been making a point of laying low in class, but after it was discussed how the stick of Joseph is the Book of Mormon and the stick of Judah is the Bible, one sister asked what on earth other religions could possibly think it means. Nobody raised their hand, so I finally volunteered, saying they think it means the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom will be reunited under one king.

The teacher then had others read subsequent verses which showed this is the primary meaning intended by Ezekiel.

Even after this was made abundantly clear, a class member raised his hand and said, "The chapter headings were written by the Brethren, and it says, The stick of Judah (the Bible) and the stick of Joseph (the Book of Mormon) will become one in the Lord

[CA Steve]

Consiglieri,

Would you mind attending my Sunday School class occasionally? I'll bring treats.

[volgadon]

I see what you are saying, and I've experienced it once in a while, but I don't think it is the headings which are dictatorial, rather the use made of them by dogmatic individuals.

[BCSpace]

There are a number of things about this recurring exegetical dictatorship of chapter headings that concern me, but I will open it to discussion to see if anybody can guess what they might be.

Church publication equals doctrine (unless otherwise noted). Also, practicing exegesis, while interesting and sometimes useful, is ultimately contrary to the way the gospel is disseminated and taught. It's going to be a "dictatorship" because only the prophets can say what the verses mean or refer to.

Or maybe it doesn't bother you in the slightest . . .

I think sometimes the prophets are wrong but never in any important or catastrophic ways relative to the truth claims of the Church. For example, sometimes there is no specific modern revelation on a subject so they might stick with traditional Christian interpretation. I put the global flodd doctrine in this category.

At other times, personal opinion or misunderstanding does get put into a doctrinal publication. This might be illustrated by your examples.

The key in my opinion is to accept that it is all doctrine, but that some may be wrong and if it is, it will ultimately be sorted out. Perhaps one feels they already have......but if one is truly LDS, one will allow personal exegesis to be trumped whenever actual revelation/official statements settle the matter.

It really is a bit of a risk and a bit of necessary tension imho. One has to be brave enough to admit that something is doctrine but that one disagrees with it. The prophets have to be in tune enough to be able to confidently squelch any misunderstanding as to what is and is not doctrine and change the publication if necessary. It is absolutely worthless to simply sit back and claim something published by the Church is not doctrine as it accomplishes nothing. If you want the Church to re-examine something, you have to risk disagreeing with doctrine.

[consiglieri]

It really is a bit of a risk and a bit of necessary tension imho. One has to be brave enough to admit that something is doctrine but that one disagrees with it. The prophets have to be in tune enough to be able to confidently squelch any misunderstanding as to what is and is not doctrine and change the publication if necessary. It is absolutely worthless to simply sit back and claim something published by the Church is not doctrine as it accomplishes nothing. If you want the Church to re-examine something, you have to risk disagreeing with doctrine.

This is an interesting point, BCS.

I feel some members consider the chapter headings to be authoritative pronouncements, on a par with scripture.

Actually, the headings become super-scripture, telling the reader not only what the scriptures say, but what the scriptures mean. Sort of like the Supreme Court is the final say on what legislation means.

If this is so, did the LDS Church surreptitiously add a host of new scripture to the Bible with the 1979 publication of the LDS Bible?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[BCSpace]

I feel some members consider the chapter headings to be authoritative pronouncements, on a par with scripture.

Actually, the headings become super-scripture, telling the reader not only what the scriptures say, but what the scriptures mean. Sort of like the Supreme Court is the final say on what legislation means.

That is what doctrine is. It is higher than and superceeds scripture. Of course there is no more important or "higher" source of doctrine than the scriptures (and modern revelation). To illustrate this, consider the example of John 3:5. Evangelicals interpret the water and the spirit to be one's physical birth and spiritual rebirth respectively. LDS interpret both to be refering to the second birth and they are water baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost (or the action/mission of the Holy Ghost) respectively. Therefore, without prophetic interpretation, the scripture is ultimately useless.

If this is so, did the LDS Church surreptitiously add a host of new scripture to the Bible with the 1979 publication of the LDS Bible?

I don't think "surreptitiously" or "host" are cromulent words in this case. But it certainly is likely some unsupported (by revelation or historical fact) doctrine is there.

[Bill Hamblin]

I think it is unwise to believe that the chapter headings are inerrant when we don't believe the Bible is inerrant.

[Kenngo1969]

I think it is unwise to believe that the chapter headings are inerrant when we don't believe the Bible is inerrant.

Well, OK; If you're gonna put it like that, I'll have to cross out the 14th Article of Faith in my scriptures:

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correcttly. We also believe the chapter headings to be the word of God.

[The_Monk]

Elder McConkie wrote those headings, and he publicly stated those things added in 1981 were not to be taken as scripture and that there were undoubtedly errors in them.

With regards to

[DH]

As The_Monk pointed out, the chapter headings and other study aids are just that, aids, and were never meant to be authoritative statements of doctrine. That certain students assume the chapter headings to be authoritative doesn't mean the Church is being dictatorial, just that the students are being lazy.

Also, practicing exegesis, while interesting and sometimes useful, is ultimately contrary to the way the gospel is disseminated and taught. It's going to be a "dictatorship" because only the prophets can say what the verses mean or refer to.

Really? Even though LDS Church leaders love to criticize the Catholic Church for formerly having religiously stuck to the Latin Bible, having its theologians and priests decide what the Bible meant, and quite literally dictate it to the masses? Even though the LDS stress the importance of the Scriptures being translated into as many languages as possible so people can read them for themselves? What is the point of reading the Scriptures for yourself unless you also have the freedom to interpret them for yourself (ideally under the guidance of the Holy Spirit)? Why bother with the Scriptures at all? Wouldn't it be more efficient, and avoid more errors of doctrine, if we only read from manuals produced by the Correlation Department?

[BCSpace]

As The_Monk pointed out, the chapter headings and other study aids are just that, aids, and were never meant to be authoritative statements of doctrine.

Nothing of the sort has been pointed out yet as The_Monk did not reference an authoritative work as defined by the Church.

With regards to

[frankenstein]

my opinion is that some who speak up in class only view the scripture as it applies to the people of the OT, they forget to "liken the scriptures".

[wenglund]

While I agree that the chapter headings are not innerrant or scriptural, I do not see it as "soft tyrrany", but rather as quite reasonable from and educational point of view, for members to generally view the Chapter headings as carrying more authority than the private opinions of Church members shared in class.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

Nothing of the sort has been pointed out yet as The_Monk did not reference an authoritative work as defined by the Church.

Funny, I thought a statement by the author would count for something.

[consiglieri]

Wouldn't it be more efficient, and avoid more errors of doctrine, if we only read from manuals produced by the Correlation Department?

This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. (Luke 4:21)

By the way, I just received a thoughtful comment on my profile from a poster who tells me this conversation sent him back to the scriptures to reread Ezekiel 37:15-20.

(I think it is always a good thing when people go back to the scriptures.)

This poster asks how I understand the writings referenced in Ezekiel.

First, I want to be clear I believe this can be interpreted as being the Book of Mormon and the Bible. Indeed, I think Mormons are somewhat tied to that intepretation as the Doctrine and Covenants seems to equate the two.

What I am saying, however, is that the primary (and obvious to me as well as pretty much every non-Mormon) meaning is that Ezekiel was commanded to make one of his symbolic prophecies, for which he is famous.

This one has to do with two sticks.

On one stick, Ezekiel is to write the words, "For Judah, etc."

On the other stick, Ezekiel is to write the words, "For Joseph, etc."

Many LDS seem to think the writing itself is "For Judah" and "For Joseph." I think the context indicates the writing is not for Judah, but rather the words, "For Judah."

Ezekiel is then to hold the two sticks in his hand as he prophecies that the two kingdoms will be reunited under one monarch, which the balance of the passage makes clear.

From my point of view, the prophecy is one of two kingdoms coming together, and this has been extrapolated by LDS (not entirely without warrant) to mean the scriptures related to those two tribes will come together.

Understanding the primary meaning of the prophecy in this matter also helps make sense of the fact that the stick for Joseph is called the "stick of Ephraim." If that is a written record coming from the tribe of Ephraim, how does that fit with the Book of Mormon, which indicates the Lehites were from Manasseh?

I think primary meanings should be discussed before secondary interpretations.

Just my thoughts.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

my opinion is that some who speak up in class only view the scripture as it applies to the people of the OT, they forget to "liken the scriptures".

This is my point exactly, Dr. Frankenfurter.

The logical place to start in reading the Old Testament is to try to understand it as it applied to the people of the Old Testament.

After all, it was "Old Testament people" writing it to be read by other "Old Testament People."

Matthew's Gospel should be warning enough of what mischief can be caused by forcing the Old Testament into a New Testament mold.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

With regards to

[consiglieri]

Funny, I thought a statement by the author would count for something.

Now this is quite the paradox.

Elder McConkie writes the chapter headings for the scriptures, which count as an "authoritative work."

Elsewhere, Elder McConkie writes that the chapter headings he wrote are "not perfect," and hence "not authoritative."

But the second statement is not contained in an "authoritative work."

Therefore, in spite of what Elder McConkie himself had to say, the chapter headings remain "authoritative."

It's a great church, really.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[mapman]

This reminds me of an experience that I had when I was thirteenish in Sunday School. We were talking about the final battle of the Nephites at Cumorah. Someone mentioned that all the Nephites were killed in the battle. I said that that wasn't true, and a couple girls got all mad at me. One pointed to the chapter heading and said something like "Look, it says that the Nephites were destroyed!" I said that because the nation was destroyed didn't mean that they were all killed. The teacher made some sort of appeal to the manual and made sure to say that the manuals were approved by the prophet. Someone told me to "stop denying the prophets" (whatever that means). I was saved by another adult in the room who pointed out that the text clearly stated that there were survivors of the battle.

Anyways, I think that if anyone is appealing to the chapter headings as proof for an interpretation is just silly (or in my case what they thought the chapter heading said). It has nothing to do with the Church, but rather what a few members mistakenly think. Despite what BCSpace might say, it is obvious to most of us what the chapter headings actually are: helpful guides provided by the Church.

[Lightbearer]

Three times over as many months, students in our Gospel Doctrine class which I am (thankfully) no longer teaching have used the chapter headings in the LDS Bible as the last word on scriptural interpretation.

And according to you what would you consider the "last word on scriptural interpretation?

One incident had to do with the prophecy in Isaiah 51:11 that Israel would "return, and come with singing unto Zion." The teacher asked what this meant, and a student answered that it referred to the children of Israel returning at the end of the Babylonian captivity.

A different class member said, "Well, I don't claim to be all that smart, but the chapter heading says, In the last days, the Lord will comfort Zion and gather Israel. So this is talking about something that hasn't happened yet and is still in the future."

who's to say both interpretations cannot be equally right? You have heard of dual meanings in the scriptures I assume?

The most recent episode was last week when the teacher was talking about Ezekiel 37:15-20. I have been making a point of laying low in class, but after it was discussed how the stick of Joseph is the Book of Mormon and the stick of Judah is the Bible, one sister asked what on earth other religions could possibly think it means. Nobody raised their hand, so I finally volunteered, saying they think it means the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom will be reunited under one king.

The teacher then had others read subsequent verses which showed this is the primary meaning intended by Ezekiel.

Even after this was made abundantly clear, a class member raised his hand and said, "The chapter headings were written by the Brethren, and it says, The stick of Judah (the Bible) and the stick of Joseph (the Book of Mormon) will become one in the Lord

[blackstrap]

For Judah ---- to be given to,to be used by,for the purposes of ...

For Joseph ------ to be given to,to be used by,for the purposes of...

What other definitions would you suggest consig.??

[blackstrap]

Can we say that the two kingdoms have been returned to be united as one with a singular monarch yet?

[consiglieri]

For Judah ---- to be given to,to be used by,for the purposes of ...

For Joseph ------ to be given to,to be used by,for the purposes of...

What other definitions would you suggest consig.??

"To represent, symbolize, stand for . . ."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Can we say that the two kingdoms have been returned to be united as one with a singular monarch yet?

No, but it seems pretty clear Ezekiel expected it to happen in his near future.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[volgadon]

It's a great church, really.

That last comment made me cringe. Consig, please don't equate BCS with the church.