Soft Tyranny of LDS Bible Chapter Headings

[DH]

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

A person can point something out without referencing an authoritative work as defined by the Church. For example, I could point out that Church Headquarters is located in Salt Lake City, Utah. Just because I didn't cite a Church publication doesn't mean that what I said is not true. Considering that Elder McConkie himself said the chapter headings are not authoritative, it seems a little silly to assert otherwise.

Of course we need to study the scriptures on our own, but neither you nor I are qualified or authorized to speak for the Church in the determination of the Church's doctrine.

True enough, I don't speak for the Church. But neither does the Church have a monopoly on truth or on the ability to interpret the Scriptures, nor does it even claim to fully interpret the Scriptures.

You pooh pooh a correlation department...

When did I "pooh pooh" correlation?

...but so what if the 15 apostles and prophets delegate the work? Do you think such manuals aren't read by them? Do you honestly believe they haven't been around long enough for major errors not to be noticed? Do you honestly believe the Church would allow it's own cirriculum to be taught if it thought so many ostensible and critical errors were present? How come you don't believe the water in John 3:5 refers to our physical birth?

It's not clear to me why you think I think those things... (shrug)

[DH]

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

Can't speak for Consig, but I'd say that in addition to taking into account what Church leaders say, a combination of study, reasoning, and the Holy Ghost are how scriptural interpretation is to be carried out.

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

I really don't think Consig was saying that both interpretations could not be correct. In fact, I think he meant that our understanding of the Scriptures should not be limited to or dictated by what the chapter headings might say. A chapter heading is a very brief summary of what's in the chapter, and as such is inherently limited as to the information it can convey. It's merely a guide to give readers an idea of what's in that chapter.

Just who should be dictating scriptural exegesis?

Umm, nobody? Why would we want anybody dictating scriptural exegesis?

[Libs]

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.

This is just a question that came to mind, while reading through this thread and is not meant to be provocative or argumentative....I was just wondering, insofar as only the Prophets could make "authoritative" chapter headings, why don't they? Wouldn't that spare a lot of what has happened, as far as some people taking chapter headings as "gospel"? If one of the Prophets wrote them, then, they would/could be gospel...right?

[consiglieri]

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

Sorry, my man.

Didn't mean to make you cringe.

But isn't that the definition of "art"?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[BCSpace]

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.

The Church might not agree with you:

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church."

It then goes on to identify where statements by Church leaders can be found that can be considered authoritative.....

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.

I think your oher notation to the effect that BRM really meant to get in some things, knowing the members would understand them to be authoritative, is nearer the mark. But it is also interesting to note that he couldn't have got them in there without others of the 15 noticing and accepting them. Perhaps a few slipped by, but nothing of consequence. But it seems perhaps my intellectual assent to the fact that there are some errors in doctrine has also gone unnoticed by those who disagree with me.

It's a great church, really.

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

I wasn't even mentioned in that post and yet my dark hand somehow continues to work it's dark purposes. Muwhahahahahahahaha.....

Are you sure you're not cringing at something the Church has stated succinctly and taught for decades?

[DH]

This is just a question that came to mind, while reading through this thread and is not meant to be provocative or argumentative....I was just wondering, insofar as only the Prophets could make "authoritative" chapter headings, why don't they? Wouldn't that spare a lot of what has happened, as far as some people taking chapter headings as "gospel"? If one of the Prophets wrote them, then, they would/could be gospel...right?

They could try, but I think that would be a mistake. As I said above, the very brevity of chapter headings would be too limiting. Because they are so short, they leave out too much. A number of scriptural passages have multiple, equally valid layers of meaning that simply cannot be expressed in a single paragraph. If a chapter heading referenced one of those meanings but not others, and if people regarded the chapter headings as doctrinally authoritative, they'd be tempted to dismiss out of hand any other meaning even if it's true.

If the Brethren wish to offer authoritative interpretations of the Scriptures, chances are they'd end up producing a commentary that is longer than the scriptural passages in question. Chapter headings are simply inadequate to the task.

[volgadon]

The Church might not agree with you:

Perhaps not, but in this case I doubt it agrees with you either.

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church."

It then goes on to identify where statements by Church leaders can be found that can be considered authoritative.....

Again, don't you think a statement by the author of the chapter headings saying that the chapter headings he himself wrote are not authoritative counts for something?

[volgadon]

I wasn't even mentioned in that post and yet my dark hand somehow continues to work it's dark purposes. Muwhahahahahahahaha.....

Seeing as the post was regarding a statement you made I don't see what is so surprising here.

Are you sure you're not cringing at something the Church has stated succinctly and taught for decades?

Yes, I am absolutely sure of it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Perhaps not, but in this case I doubt it agrees with you either.

Again, don't you think a statement by the author of the chapter headings saying that the chapter headings he himself wrote are not authoritative counts for something?

Funny thing about BCSpace: doesn't see the circular reasoning in "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" and adheres to it fanatically.

[BCSpace]

Are you sure you're not cringing at something the Church has stated succinctly and taught for decades?

Yes, I am absolutely sure of it.

The reason I mentioned it, of course, is because I am sure you are. You know, I don't work in the COB, but I have rubbed shoulders with too many Bishops, Stake Presidents, Regional reps, and have been counseled too many times by visiting GA's to think otherwise. A logical fallacy to be sure to make claims of "my authority or experience is greater than yours" which is why I simply say, read what the Church itself has said.

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

A person can point something out without referencing an authoritative work as defined by the Church. For example, I could point out that Church Headquarters is located in Salt Lake City, Utah. Just because I didn't cite a Church publication doesn't mean that what I said is not true. Considering that Elder McConkie himself said the chapter headings are not authoritative, it seems a little silly to assert otherwise.

Unless one is refering to what the Church considers doctrinal and authoritative.

Of course we need to study the scriptures on our own, but neither you nor I are qualified or authorized to speak for the Church in the determination of the Church's doctrine.

True enough, I don't speak for the Church. But neither does the Church have a monopoly on truth

I am only speaking of the truth the Church does have and claims to teach.

or on the ability to interpret the Scriptures, nor does it even claim to fully interpret the Scriptures.

But it does claim to have the only authoritative interpretation of scripture. God does not have any currently authorized prophets outside the LDS Church.

You pooh pooh a correlation department...

When did I "pooh pooh" correlation?

When you said: "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?"

...but so what if the 15 apostles and prophets delegate the work? Do you think such manuals aren't read by them? Do you honestly believe they haven't been around long enough for major errors not to be noticed? Do you honestly believe the Church would allow it's own cirriculum to be taught if it thought so many ostensible and critical errors were present? How come you don't believe the water in John 3:5 refers to our physical birth?

It's not clear to me why you think I think those things... (shrug)

Good! Then we must be in perfect agreement.

Funny thing about BCSpace: doesn't see the circular reasoning in "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" and adheres to it fanatically.

Even funnier is LoaP not being able to specifically identify the circular reasoning he claims to exist.

Why wouldn't a member of an organization adhere to that organization's own statements about it's rules (in this case Church doctrine) as authoritative? It's interesting how some adherents of an organization would fanatically seek to minimize or even throw out such clear and unambiguous statements. I'm really curious as to why since it is only in this small and isolated virtual world that such a thing is common place.

[Libs]

If a chapter heading referenced one of those meanings but not others, and if people regarded the chapter headings as doctrinally authoritative, they'd be tempted to dismiss out of hand any other meaning even if it's true.

Seems like people are already doing that, which was the point of this thread.

I do understand what you're saying, though, and I'm sure it would be a bit difficult, but seems like, at least, the errors could be corrected (if there are errors...and it seems there are a few)..and maybe a disclaimer in the book about the correctness of the headers?

[sethpayne]

Funny thing about BCSpace: doesn't see the circular reasoning in "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" and adheres to it fanatically.

Gospel Hobby perhaps?

[TAO]

Seems like people are already doing that, which was the point of this thread.

I do understand what you're saying, though, and I'm sure it would be a bit difficult, but seems like, at least, the errors could be corrected (if there are errors...and it seems there are a few)..and maybe a disclaimer in the book about the correctness of the headers?

Also, the prophets and apostles are not entitled to all God knows, I think. When JS was doing the JST, he kept adding stuff all over his life. It didn't all come at once, and I think God wouldn't reveal it all at the same time even if he asked the prophets and apostles to do such. And I think God might choose to keep some verses hidden, for a good reason.

[jadams_4242]

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

[BCSpace]

Gospel Hobby perhaps?

Naw.

I considered that as a self-check, but then I realized I only bring it up when someone else brings up an issue requiring a definition of doctrine. Plus after debating with some of you, many antiMormons are left confused as to what doctrine really is so I have to come in and sweep up after. I think I'm good.

[BCSpace]

Also, the prophets and apostles are not entitled to all God knows, I think. When JS was doing the JST, he kept adding stuff all over his life. It didn't all come at once, and I think God wouldn't reveal it all at the same time even if he asked the prophets and apostles to do such. And I think God might choose to keep some verses hidden, for a good reason.

I agree. The Lectures on Faith seem to be a prime example with their removal driven, imho, by the fact that some people refuse to see and accept the development of doctrine.

[J Green]

The reason I mentioned it, of course, is because I am sure you are. You know, I don't work in the COB, but I have rubbed shoulders with too many Bishops, Stake Presidents, Regional reps, and have been counseled too many times by visiting GA's to think otherwise. A logical fallacy to be sure to make claims of "my authority or experience is greater than yours" which is why I simply say, read what the Church itself has said.

My sense is that you're reading the Church's statement in reverse. You have taken the idea that doctrine is consistently published in official church publications and turned it around to mean that everything so published becomes doctrine. But this is not what it says. It would be the logical equivalent of taking the phrase "Most Arabs are Muslims" (true) and interpreting it to mean "Most Muslims are Arabs" (not true). The statement is a vehicle to tell us how doctrine is established (through counseling and inspiration to the collective 1st Pres and Q12), where it is sourced (standard works), and how it is consistently delivered (official publications). But it nowhere says that Doctrine (as it is defined in the document) is the only thing published in official publications or that everything so published is now considered doctrine. Those types of declarations are absent from the statement and are (I believe) exactly opposite of what the Church was trying to clarify due to questions about official doctrine that arose during the presidential election.

That being said, it is important to note that this doesn't mean we can jettison or ignore everything we don't like from official publications. After correlation, the Church considers everything that is published in official publications to be at least consistent with doctrine. Thus articles, sermons, etc. published in Church magazines would be considered to be consistent with doctrine but not doctrine unless they are the result of collective counseling and inspiration by the 1st Pres and Q12. And yes, recipes in The Friend do not become doctrine based simply on publication, although they may be considered consistent with doctrine to the extent that the ingredients were reviewed in correlation and resulted in a determination that cinnamon is an acceptable spice. Poems published in The New Era may be consistent with doctrine as long as their rhyme schemes are not overwhelmingly bland.

I asked our Bishop about the Church's statement, and he hadn't seen it since I had brought it up when I was the Gospel Doctrine teacher. He said he had never thought about it extensively but couldn't fault my understanding of it. When I asked my SP (who works at the COB), he gave me the interpretation I gave above without any leading questions.

Regards

[J Green]

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".

I find that in it helps to understand the first context in order to liken it unto ourselves. I like how our own Bill Hamblin articulated the importance of context in his introduction to the Gospel of John:

First, I believe the best way to approach John is by contextualizing his gospel in the first century when it was written. Most modern readers encounter John as modern readers; that is to say, we read it in light of the social, religious, linguistic and intellectual context of the early twenty-first century, nearly two thousand years after John wrote. We tend to read John while intellectually engaged with the theological and moral issues of our modern age. In one sense this is completely natural; if John could not speak to the concerns of twenty-first century readers, no one would read him. On the other hand, this can cause distortion in John's original message.

We certainly can and should liken the scriptures to our own situations through prayer and inspiration, but it is also important to know exactly what the first message is saying.

[BCSpace]

My sense is that you're reading the Church's statement in reverse.

The reason why I'm sure I'm not is because the Church has been teaching it this same way for decades; long before the 2007 statement which simply summarizes many of the aspects. Such a summary makes my job easier though.

You have taken the idea that doctrine is consistently published in official church publications and turned it around to mean that everything so published becomes doctrine.

Unless otherwise noted (as is the case with the Bible Dictionary) yes. Can you think of any others which claim the same exceptions? Are there any Church publications that are not part of the cirriculum, missionary tools, or leadership training?

But this is not what it says.

It's exactly what it's saying. When the Church says teach the doctrine and then gives examples of doctrine, what's missing? Have you read Teaching, No Greater Call for example?

That being said, it is important to note that this doesn't mean we can jettison or ignore everything we don't like from official publications. After correlation, the Church considers everything that is published in official publications to be at least consistent with doctrine.

Which makes them doctrine. Of course it's a misnomer to separate them as there is nothing else that qualifies as doctrine that Church publications can be compared to. The scriptures are sources of doctrine, but as we found out, they are not self-interpreting.

Thus articles, sermons, etc. published in Church magazines would be considered to be consistent with doctrine but not doctrine unless they are the result of collective counseling and inspiration by the 1st Pres and Q12.

Incorrect. Another way to approach it is that they are all part of the cirriculum which makes them doctrine.

And yes, recipes in The Friend do not become doctrine based simply on publication, although they may be considered consistent with doctrine to the extent that the ingredients were reviewed in correlation and resulted in a determination that cinnamon is an acceptable spice. Poems published in The New Era may be consistent with doctrine as long as their rhyme schemes are not overwhelmingly bland.

Contextually, the doctrine would be that they are recipes and poems acceptable for a doctrinal publication.

I asked our Bishop about the Church's statement, and he hadn't seen it since I had brought it up when I was the Gospel Doctrine teacher. He said he had never thought about it extensively but couldn't fault my understanding of it. When I asked my SP (who works at the COB), he gave me the interpretation I gave above without any leading questions.

I don't know of any bishops or stake presidents who disagree with or differ from my take on doctrine. I don't know of any gospel doctrine teachers (one of my areas of responsibility) who understand it differently. I've double-checked with several visiting GA's and regional reps. There's been no change in the Church's stance on doctrine for decades. It's the same as when I was a missionary long ago. It's been expressly stated to me that one of the reasons I was selected for the calling I do have is because I agree with and understand the Church's position on doctrine.

[J Green]

BC,

I remain equally convinced that your interpretation is incorrect. But cheers nonetheless.

Regards

[Fifth Columnist]

For those of you who disagree with BCS's method for identifying doctrine, please provide an alternative. From what I can tell, the most popular alternative is purely ad hoc. If there is another way, I would love to hear it.

[BCSpace]

I remain equally convinced that your interpretation is incorrect. But cheers nonetheless.

I think there's a chance you may be closer than you think in that I agree there are nondoctrinal items in the publications; but such are always noted or prefaced with statements like "in my opinion" or "my belief" or other context. However the fact remains that the Church considers all it's publications to be authoritative doctrine unless otherwise noted. Unless one comes into line with the Church's viewpoint on this, one will always have trouble defining LDS doctrine when speaking to others outside the Church on this subject.

[Jeff K.]

Meh... Much ado about nothing.

1-Chapter headings are scriptural aides, nothing more

2-Chapter headings are not doctrine

3-A teacher may consider chapter headings inerrant in the way he teaches, and this of course is an incorrect teaching since even scriptures may be open to interpretation.

The only tyranny out there are the cherry pickers who percieve through their own testimonials (my term for "testimony of themselves") as the arbiters of proper condmenation. It could be an excellent exercize to see how vague we can make the word "tyranny by attaching it almost any situation. Kind of like the word "alarmist".

[BCSpace]

For those of you who disagree with BCS's method for identifying doctrine, please provide an alternative. From what I can tell, the most popular alternative is purely ad hoc. If there is another way, I would love to hear it.

You might hear something by Michael R. Ash whose article is incomplete and mixes works both published and not published by the Church. He does refer a little bit to what the Church has actually said even prior to the 2007 summarizing statement which proves that this stuff has been around for decades.

IIRC we had a podcast a year or two ago (was it a discussion between Ash and some GA?) which ultimately ended up concluding with the same thing I'm saying.

[LifeOnaPlate]

For those of you who disagree with BCS's method for identifying doctrine, please provide an alternative. From what I can tell, the most popular alternative is purely ad hoc. If there is another way, I would love to hear it.

In a way, it can be pretty ad hoc for each individual. I've written about the problem of who speaks for Mormons here: http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Who-Speaks-for-Mormons.html

The footnotes there cite several of the best discussions on the subject I've read.