The Myth Of The Unforgiving, Line-Drawing G-D Of The Old Testament

[Bob Crockett]

when we have our vote in general conference to make the manuals Scripture, you will have something there. Until then, please pardon my skepticism.

More:

President Spencer W. Kimball, in "How Rare a Possession," The story of King Josiah in the Old Testament is a most profitable one to “liken … unto [our]selves.” (1 Ne. 19:24.) To me, it is one of the finest stories in all of the scriptures. Josiah was only eight years old when he began to reign in Judah, and although his immediate progenitors were extremely wicked, the scriptures tell us that “he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left.” (2 Kings 22:2.) This is all the more surprising when we learn that by that time (just two generations before the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.) the written law of Moses had been lost and was virtually unknown, even among the priests of the temple! But in the eighteenth year of his reign, Josiah directed that the temple be repaired. At that time Hilkiah, the high priest, found the book of the law, which Moses had placed in the ark of the covenant, and delivered it to King Josiah." https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-spencer-w-kimball/chapter-6?lang=eng

lds.org "Josiah": King of Judah, 641–610 B.C. (see 2 Kgs. 22–24; 2 Chr. 34–35). While still young, he made, under the guidance of Hilkiah, a thorough religious reformation, which extended to the northern tribes. He restored the temple, destroyed idolatrous images and the high places, put down the idolatrous priests, and celebrated a great Passover (2 Kgs. 23:21–23). During this reformation a book of the law was found by Hilkiah (2 Kgs. 22:8–9; 2 Chr. 34:15–16). It made at once a great impression and led to the centralizing of all sacrificial worship at Jerusalem and the abolition of local idolatrous sanctuaries or high places.

https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2011-03-40-josiah-and-the-book-of-the-law?lang=eng is a church-produced video on the reformation.

This year's Lesson 30 in the Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual: "What good things did Josiah do early in his reign as king? (See 2 Chronicles 34:3–8. He sought the true God, destroyed idolatry in the kingdom, and sent people to repair the temple. Point out that Josiah was only 15 or 16 years old when he began making these important changes.)"

WW Phelps, 2 Messenger & Advocate [edited by Oliver Cowdery, a member of the First Presidency] No. 14, Nov 1835: O that there was a ruler like him [Josiah] to honor God in these last days! To brake the altars of Baal! To purge the world of its adulterous priests, and false religion, that all men might come to the knowledge of the truth, as it came to Adam; as it came to Noah; as it came to Abraham; as it came to Jacob; as it came to Joseph; as it came to Moses; as it came to all the prophets before the Savior came in the flesh; as it came to his apostles on the eastern and western continents; as it came to Joseph Smith, jr. and it will come to inspired men while the world stands: for no one will ever get too much knowledge, too much grace, too much faith, or too much charity to save his soul in the celestial kingdom. No one can be too good to be saved, but many may be too bad. It is almost laughable to see how afraid some are of goodness. That book of Mormon seems to be so good, beware of it,—but when a lying novel, that is calculated to lead the mind of lightness and lechery, comes out—O never mind it, it cannot hurt any one. Wo unto that nation where no preference is made to virtue more than vice!

Church News Editorial, August 6, 1994: "Josiah became one of Judah's greatest rulers. With the help of Hilkiah, the high priest, Josiah tried to restore true worship in the kingdom of Judah."

I can surely generate much more. Suffice it to say, any belief or teaching that the Josiah reform wiped out what had been true religion and replaced it with a false one is quite contrary to LDS teachings.

And, the story has been accepted as canon. Indeed. As the text itself demonstrates and the commentary which accompanies it.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Senator]

"Josiah became one of Judah's greatest rulers. With the help of Hilkiah, the high priest, Josiah tried to restore true worship in the kingdom of Judah."

My question is, (and I confess only a superficial understanding of this biblical story); if Josiah's reforms were divinely led and had the effect of restoring the institutional state of Judah to its proper (righteous) place, why was it then ripe for destruction and soon destroyed? Maybe I'm confusing the timeline...

[J Green]

A few thoughts:

 

First, as Bob likely well knows, when the Brethren are relating stories from scripture, they do so from a devotional perspective to talk about principles such as faith and restoration after apostasy, etc. What they don't pretend to be doing is textual analysis, or form or historical criticism. I would guess that given their backgrounds and busy schedules, very few of them even understand the textual issues surrounding some of these stories. In this instance, very few of them would understand that there is a built-in conflict between Josiah's reforms as outlined in the two accounts in Kings and Chronicles. Or that there is conflict between the reform accounts in Kings/Chronicles and Jeremiah's witness against the current king (Josiah) and his religious advisors. Using another example, there are several accounts of who kills Goliath, and in only one of those accounts is David the actor. Textual critics would compare the various accounts and make educated guesses about authorship, provenance, etc. But when the brethren (or other members) relate the story of David slaying Goliath, they don't pretend to understand or expound on the textual issues behind the conflicting stories or pronounce revelatory guidance to the Church about which account is accurate after petitioning God in prayer. They are simply using the story (which they take at face value without delving into textual issues) to illustrate the importance of faith in tackling head-on the challenges in our lives. Contrast this with the sections of the D&C where Joseph asks God directly about how to interpret textual issues in difficult passages of scripture. I could actually see Joseph Smith being interested in the different accounts of Goliath or Josiah's reform and Jeremiah's witness against Josiah and asking God for revelation on which of these account (if any) were more accurate. That would be different. But this is not what is happening in the devotional approach used by members and leaders of the Church in our lessons and talks. So I find it disingenuous for Bob to use what are clearly devotional readings about Josiah's reform as proof of revelatory pronouncements about matters that touch on textual analysis and historical criticism.

 

Second, Bob is taking the idea of strictly adhering to correlated manuals in formal settings such as Seminary and Sunday School and using that to stifle valid questions or discussions outside those more formal settings. There are appropriate times and places for different kinds of discussions. A General Authority president of BYU found it appropriate to bring Barker to BYU to discuss her non-correlated theories about Josiah's reform with the department of religious education. He also thought it appropriate to encourage his professors to collaborate with her in conferences (e.g., SBL), and to jointly publish with her under the BYU imprimatur. And when BYU leadership and GAs approved the agenda for the Library of Congress celebration of the birth of Joseph Smith, they approved Margaret Barker (the only non-LDS participant) to share her non-correlated views in a valuable exchange with Terryl Givens, on whom the brethren have placed a lot of confidence lately as related difficult issues have arisen. There is a time and a season under heaven for all things. When I teach Gospel Doctrine, I stick to correlated material as asked, and I don't bring in other theories or introduce Margaret Barker's opinions about Josiah's reforms. But I find it somewhat offensive that Bob would try to extend that principle to other spheres where they very clearly don't apply and claim that those who "by study and faith" want to consider some of these ideas in other venues (such as with GA approval at BYU, etc.) are weak and puerile in the faith. Bad form.

 

I have other issues with his line of reasoning (e.g., his claims about atheism, textual criticism, and Dever are simply false), but I'll stop there for now. I don't mind when Bob shares his own views or opinions. What is frustrating, however, is that year after year after year after year on this board on two specific hobby topics he persistently challenges the faith of those who hold a differing opinion or any who show a desire to explore and discuss the issues in a non-formal venue from a faithful perspective. Enough already with the badgering of faithlessness and malnourished appeals to authority. Simply discuss the issues, share your viewpoint, and move on.

[Bob Crockett]

My question is, (and I confess only a superficial understanding of this biblical story); if Josiah's reforms were divinely led and had the effect of restoring the institutional state of Judah to its proper (righteous) place, why was it then ripe for destruction and soon destroyed? Maybe I'm confusing the timeline...

And I think perhaps you are reading more into what I have to say. I'm not here to defend the history or the teaching. Rather, if we are believing Latter-day Saints called to teaching positions, isn't it arrogance for me to think that I know better than the manuals and thus do not need to adhere to them? Isn't it arrogance for me to smile behind my hand and thing, "Hey, I've read Barker; I've read Dever. I know the truth and the facts and surely those bumpkins in Church HQ do not."

[Bob Crockett]

I don't mind when Bob shares his own views or opinions. What is frustrating, however, is that year after year after year after year on this board on two specific hobby topics he persistently challenges the faith of those who hold a differing opinion or any who show a desire to explore and discuss the issues in a non-formal venue from a faithful perspective. Enough already with the badgering of faithlessness and malnourished appeals to authority. Simply discuss the issues, share your viewpoint, and move on.

The "appeals to authority" argument does not apply when one appeals to an authority in the topic. The Brethren and the manuals are the authority. I believe you would implicitly recognize that by keeping your opinions to yourself when you teach a church class.

I don't think there is any significance whatsoever to BYU's invitation to Barker to speak. She has spoken at other universities; why not BYU? I just don't think she is qualified, for instance, as is Dever, to speak on Canaanite beliefs. I'd rather see Dever speak at BYU, or Coe.

And I don't comment upon an individual's faithfulness or lack thereof, really. If I have, you have my apologies.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[J Green]

Bob,

 

Your response highlights the problem. The brethren and the manuals are the authority on what? On historical criticism? Or on the devotional reading of how a story applies to living the Gospel? You keeping taking the context of one to apply to the other. Did you read the first issue I highlighted above? Do you understand the difference between Joseph Smith or Joseph F. Smith praying for revelation about how to make sense of a biblical passage and when we as members and leaders use a biblical passage for devotional purposes to highlight Gospel principles?

 

The significance of Barker at BYU is simply this: There are venues outside of formal Church settings like Sunday School and seminary where it is okay for Latter-day Saints to discuss these issues. Ergo, stop bludgeoning others for trying to discuss these issues here in this non-formal venue from a faithful perspective.

 

The reason I don't discuss non-correlated material when I teach Gospel Doctrine is not a measure of my agreement with your point of view. It means I simply stick to the guidance from the Church for its formal lessons. In any case, these lessons are focused on devotional application of stories and not on the historical issues behind the original text, so it seems rather pointless until if and when the point of the lessons change.

 

Last, if you haven't been commenting upon the lack of faith of others for simply discussing this topic and that of the Hill Cumorah on this board (a non-formal setting), then you need to have my apologies.

 

 

Regards

[Bob Crockett]

Bro. Green:

 

Biblical criticism has placed no part in church manuals, liturgy or theology.  There's too much said about that.  I have been making this point in my posts above.  Barlow talks about this extensively in his book.  Talmage lectured on it extensively, as did J. Reuben Clark, Bruce R. McConkie and others.  An important recent article on this point is from Elder Oaks at https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/01/scripture-reading-and-revelation?lang=eng.   Elder Oaks is the most recent to adopt the theology that commentaries are worthless to understand the Bible, as are commentaries about the Bible's historical context.  Despite having dozens of critical texts on my bookshelf, and having spent thousands of dollars on these books, I remain convinced that the sister who lives in my ward who raised 9 children and often worked full time to help support them, and who has a faith in the Bible, is not required to read Dever to understand truth.  She has the faith of her LDS forbears and the Brethren, not the kind you teach here.  So, yes, the Brethren are authorities on biblical criticism, at least to the extent it constitutes "the truth."  There is no indication in any sermon I've ever read that Biblical criticism plays any part in church manuals, liturgy or theology.  

 

The exceptions I've seen are these:   Orson Pratt engaged in much theological speculation, to the point he probably didn't believe in an anthroporphic God; I see some Biblical criticism in his thinking.  It was Brigham Young's recognition that Joseph Smith loved Orson Pratt that Elder Pratt wasn't excommunicated.  Moses Thatcher probably didn't even believe in the Bible and had a few things to say that seemed to follow Biblical criticism; of course, he was excommunicated for his troubles. Talmage or Widstoe, I'm not sure which, approved a course of study in the 1940s for the Seventy's Quorum that relied much on historical analysis of the ANF and a little on historical criticism (more of the church than the bible).  But, beyond that, I haven't seen anything. 

 

But, if you were to inspect general authority sermons since the day of Orson Pratt, you would see nothing really to justify the baloney that passes for theological speculation offered by good-hearted members of the church who think they can improve upon the Book of Mormon or the Bible with citation to atheists.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Bikeemikey]

But, if you were to inspect general authority sermons since the day of Orson Pratt, you would see nothing really to justify the baloney that passes for theological speculation offered by good-hearted members of the church who think they can improve upon the Book of Mormon or the Bible with citation to atheists.

 

Why does the personal revelation and religious speculation of members of the church need to be considered baloney if the subject has not been discussed by GA sermons? 

 

This strikes me as a very regressive way of approaching the principles of the restored gospel.

[Bob Crockett]

Why does the personal revelation and religious speculation of members of the church need to be considered baloney if the subject has not been discussed by GA sermons? 

 

This strikes me as a very regressive way of approaching the principles of the restored gospel.

Because it is contrary to sermons of the Brethren and contrary to Church manuals.  Thus, baloney.   But, keep in mind that my position on this thread is not to criticize what one thinks and believes, but to criticize the practices of (1) teaching in a calling beyond church manuals to criticize Josiah's reforms, and (2) teaching from the church manuals without believing what you're teaching because you think you know more about Josiah's reforms. 

 

And, "personal revelation" is no basis upon which to contravene the teachings of the church.  As we learned from Hiram Page, if you have a personal revelation, you must keep it to yourself rather than use it to contravene published teachings or tell your Gospel Doctrine class that the true worship of Asherah was written out of the Bible by false priests, or to teach the Marcionite heresy.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[frank_jessop]

I wonder if the writers of ancient writ suffered from the same tendencies?

For context: whether the writers wrote of God in their image of what should be like.

Senator, while your statement could be true, I will attempt to clarify. I see the first post here as wanting to correct an extreme position held by others. That extreme being that God is unforgiving, etc. However, in countering that extreme the opposite extreme, appears, to have been taken. That extreme being that God is only forgiving and merciful.

I say that neither extreme is correct on it is own. As I understand the God of the OT:

flooding the earth;

Preservation of Jacob via Joseph;

Plagues on Egypt;

Serpent on the Rod;

40 years wandering;

Meat till it came out their nostrils;

destruction of entire peoples;

forgiveness the people of Nineveh;

and many more instances.

These show a God who is line-drawing and forgiving. Nineveh was told repent (forgiveness) or be destroyed (line-drawn). Nineveh chose repentance, and was forgiven.

[Bikeemikey]

Because it is contrary to sermons of the Brethren and contrary to Church manuals.  Thus, baloney.   But, keep in mind that my position on this thread is not to criticize what one thinks and believes, but to criticize the practices of (1) teaching in a calling beyond church manuals to criticize Josiah's reforms, and (2) teaching from the church manuals without believing what you're teaching because you think you know more about Josiah's reforms. The latter seems rabidly hypocritical to me. 

 

And, "personal revelation" is no basis upon which to contravene the teachings of the church.  As we learned from Hiram Page, if you have a personal revelation, you must keep it to yourself rather than use it to contravene published teachings or tell your Gospel Doctrine class that the true worship of Asherah was written out of the Bible by false priests, or to teach the Marcionite heresy.

 

Perhaps you didn't actually read my post... I asked the question about things "not" addressed by GA's. How can speculation on something not discussed by GA's be baloney?

 

That said I still disagree with you position above from paragraph one.

 

As for paragraph two: I think you are having opposite day. The only valid reason to contravene church teachings is personal revelation.

 

Im pretty sure Nephi killing laban is exactly that example. Though if it is not an example of a person yielding to personal revelation when everything they have ever been taught religiously and culturally is telling them otherwise I must be crazy.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bob Crockett]

Perhaps you didn't actually read my post...

I did read it.   They have spoken on the subject, plenty of times.  Please check out a few of my quotes above and Elder Oaks' sermon.  The Brethren and the manuals have "occupied the field," so to speak.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[USU78]

Suffice it to say, any belief or teaching that the Josiah reform wiped out what had been true religion and replaced it with a false one is quite contrary to LDS teachings.

And, the story has been accepted as canon. Indeed. As the text itself demonstrates and the commentary which accompanies it.

 

{sigh}

 

So much for peaceful and friendly.

 

Here's the thing:  GBH's acceptance of the documentary hypothesis over the pulpit in a setting that suggests if not demands ex cathedra status puts all of that material in considerable doubt by its implications.  As does JSJr's "as far as it is translated correctly."

 

Gentle doesn't work with you, apparently.

 

Friendly doesn't work with you, apparently.

 

Peaceful doesn't work with you, apparently.

 

Your approach reminds me of a 30-ish John Lennon's over-the-top rudeness and dismissiveness and shouting-down of an Anglican Cleric during an on-air "conversation" on the BBC.  The latter's gentleness and attempts to locate common ground were painful in the face of the smug nastiness that came out of the former Beatle

 

Ultimately, your fundamentalist mindset and slavishness are abhorrent to my sensibilities and inimical to any reasoned discussion on G-d's Grace to be found in the OT despite fundamentalist and trendylefty religiophobic notions to the contrary.

 

Please don't participate in this thread any longer.

 

And you and I can just parallel play in other threads in future.

[USU78]

Bob,

 

Your response highlights the problem. The brethren and the manuals are the authority on what? On historical criticism? Or on the devotional reading of how a story applies to living the Gospel? You keeping taking the context of one to apply to the other. Did you read the first issue I highlighted above? Do you understand the difference between Joseph Smith or Joseph F. Smith praying for revelation about how to make sense of a biblical passage and when we as members and leaders use a biblical passage for devotional purposes to highlight Gospel principles?

 

The significance of Barker at BYU is simply this: There are venues outside of formal Church settings like Sunday School and seminary where it is okay for Latter-day Saints to discuss these issues. Ergo, stop bludgeoning others for trying to discuss these issues here in this non-formal venue from a faithful perspective.

 

The reason I don't discuss non-correlated material when I teach Gospel Doctrine is not a measure of my agreement with your point of view. It means I simply stick to the guidance from the Church for its formal lessons. In any case, these lessons are focused on devotional application of stories and not on the historical issues behind the original text, so it seems rather pointless until if and when the point of the lessons change.

 

Last, if you haven't been commenting upon the lack of faith of others for simply discussing this topic and that of the Hill Cumorah on this board (a non-formal setting), then you need to have my apologies.

 

 

Regards

 

I fear your tact and gentleness are falling and will ever fall on deaf ears.

 

Thanks for opening my eyes.

[USU78]

Of course this is an interesting question about the OT.

 

If the God of the OT really was taught and read to be a real Hard-a$#@ then that makes the restoration of JS even more revelatory.

 

Here is an awesome talk to that effect: http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1508

 

Part of what makes JS so remarkable is the extreme break that he made from the traditional concept of God.

 

And that is one of the principal beauties we are so fortunate to enjoy.

 

The G-d Who weeps for our troubles was there in Enoch's day, long before an earth filled with violence necessitated the flood.  And that kinda predates the conquest of Canaan.

 

The G-d Who drives the Adversary out of the Garden for his instigation of Adam & Eve's little rebellion is mild and caring, even pausing to cause an expiatory proxy sacrifice to be performed for Adam & Eve's benefit, softening their burden of guilt and covering their shame and their nakedness, before having them escorted from the Garden.  And this all was before all. 

 

Consequences yes.  Everlasting shame with no hope of redemption no.

 

Slavish adherence to a particular "spin" on the written word is, to say the least, unwise.

[Bob Crockett]

Please don't participate in this thread any longer.

 

And you and I can just parallel play in other threads in future.

Other than this post, your wish is my command.  

 

I've always followed and respected your posts.   You are very knowledgeable.   I apologize for my participation in this thread and will express my views in others'.  Cheers. 

[Bikeemikey]

And that is one of the principal beauties we are so fortunate to enjoy.

 

The G-d Who weeps for our troubles was there in Enoch's day, long before an earth filled with violence necessitated the flood.  And that kinda predates the conquest of Canaan.

 

The G-d Who drives the Adversary out of the Garden for his instigation of Adam & Eve's little rebellion is mild and caring, even pausing to cause an expiatory proxy sacrifice to be performed for Adam & Eve's benefit, softening their burden of guilt and covering their shame and their nakedness, before having them escorted from the Garden.  And this all was before all. 

 

Consequences yes.  Everlasting shame with no hope of redemption no.

 

Slavish adherence to a particular "spin" on the written word is, to say the least, unwise.

 

Sure, can you read a loving God into the OT - Yep we do.

 

Is it as easy as reading a loving God into the NT, nope not so much.

 

Is the NT and OT sufficient to reach the idea of a loving God - Nope obviously not...

 

It may be in dispute that the OT only shows an angry vengeful God.

 

What is not in dispute is that Christianity as authored from the OT and NT developed a comprehensive vision of a vengeful angry god. Hence the remarkable achievement of JS restoration.

[Senator]

Why does the personal revelation and religious speculation of members of the church need to be considered baloney if the subject has not been discussed by GA sermons? 

 

This strikes me as a very regressive way of approaching the principles of the restored gospel.

 

It appears that the thinking really has been done after all!

[Bikeemikey]

 

It appears that the thinking really has been done after all!

 

Sorry.. to subtle for me... end of a long day at work and I don't think I have caught your nuance... sorry 

[Senator]

(2) teaching from the church manuals without believing what you're teaching because you think you know more about Josiah's reforms. 

 

if you have a personal revelation, you must keep it to yourself rather than use it to contravene published teachings or tell your Gospel Doctrine class that the true worship of Asherah was written out of the Bible by false priests, or to teach the Marcionite heresy.

Actually doing this would put one in violation of your #2 criticism above.

So the only thing left to do would be to recuse oneself from the teaching position.

SWEET! One more legitimate justification to turn down an entire category of callings.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Senator

[Senator]

Sorry.. to subtle for me... end of a long day at work and I don't think I have caught your nuance... sorry 

 

"When the prophet speaks the thinking has been done", has been a common statement that critics of the church have been quick to exploit, only to have been admirably rebuffed by the apologists.

Now, I'm not so sure the apologists were on the side of right.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Senator

[Bikeemikey]

"When the prophet speaks the thinking has been done", has been a common statement that critics of the church have been quick to exploit, only to have been admirably rebuffed by the apologists.

Now, I'm not so sure the apologists were on the side of right.

 

Got ya...

 

Like i said... a long day.. normally im a bit sharper than that.

[USU78]

"When the prophet speaks the thinking has been done", has been a common statement that critics of the church have been quick to exploit, only to have been admirably rebuffed by the apologists.

Now, I'm not so sure the apologists were on the side of right.

 

Sure they/we were/are.