On The Myth Of Scriptural Literalism

[maklelan]

I recently posted a short essay on my blog in response to the claim made by numerous New Atheists (most notably Sam Harris) that fundamentalist religionists who read their scriptural texts literally are to be considered the more pious and genuine believers. This claim serves the argument that religion is fundamentally dangerous and harmful, since most scriptures seem to command genocide and racism, etc. The point of my essay is that there's actually no such thing as scriptural literalism. One of the concluding paragraphs:

 

Literalists are not literal about scripture, they’re literal about their ideology. Scripture is secondary. Religious groups don’t derive doctrine from the literal interpretation of scripture, they derive doctrine from negotiating between their group’s past, the needs of the present within a cultural context, and their interpretation (which is not literal) of scripture. It’s very important to keep in mind that that last item serves the other two. Scripture is the authority to which religionists appeal for their beliefs. It is not the source of their beliefs. It is flexible and ambiguous and malleable enough to say what religious groups need it to say. There are ideological literalists, and scripture is their paint and palette. There are no scriptural literalists.

 

I'm interested in your thoughts. 

[ERayR]

I recently posted a short essay on my blog in response to the claim made by numerous New Atheists (most notably Sam Harris) that fundamentalist religionists who read their scriptural texts literally are to be considered the more pious and genuine believers. This claim serves the argument that religion is fundamentally dangerous and harmful, since most scriptures seem to command genocide and racism, etc. The point of my essay is that there's actually no such thing as scriptural literalism. One of the concluding paragraphs:

 

 

I'm interested in your thoughts. 

 

To some extent we are all literalists.  To our own pov.

[SmileyMcGee]

I agree with you. The use of the term "literalist" implies a precision and exactness in the language of scripture that I don't think exists. "Literalist," it seems to me, is used to describe people whose interpretations of scripture conflict with science or some generally accepted worldview. For example, if someone says "I believe that Jesus literally lived in the near east," no one would likely label that person a literalist, since the prevailing view is that some character, Jesus, probably lived in the near east. However, if someone says "I believe that the entire earth was literally submerged in water during the time of Noah" or "I believe that the earth is literally 6,000 years old," such as person would likely be labeled a literalist. It seems the disregard of science-based beliefs in favor of beliefs that contradict science is what makes a person a "literalist"  and is what Sam Harris, et al find disturbing. "Literalist" may not be the most appropriate term. 

Edited August 27, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Brian 2.0]

I recently posted a short essay on my blog in response to the claim made by numerous New Atheists (most notably Sam Harris) that fundamentalist religionists who read their scriptural texts literally are to be considered the more pious and genuine believers. This claim serves the argument that religion is fundamentally dangerous and harmful, since most scriptures seem to command genocide and racism, etc. The point of my essay is that there's actually no such thing as scriptural literalism. One of the concluding paragraphs:

 

 

I'm interested in your thoughts. 

 

I think you are right in the sense that you will always bring interpretation to the table, simply because language requires it.  

 

But there definitely is a distinction between people that think the Bible is the word of God in that every word is perfect (even in its translation down to English!) compared to those who view the Bible as divine inspired writings that also have the marks of imperfect men.   

 

Believing your scripture is God's word as if direct from His mouth vs God's words delivered through fallible men can yield very different interpretations in some of the more "troubling" verses of scripture from a variety of religions.  

Edited August 27, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[maklelan]

I think you are right in the sense that you will always bring interpretation to the table, simply because language requires it.  

 

But there definitely is a distinction between people that think the Bible is the word of God in that every word is perfect (even in its translation down to English!) compared to those who view the Bible as divine inspired writings that also have the marks of imperfect men.   

 

Believing your scripture is God's word as if direct from His mouth vs God's words delivered through fallible men can yield very different interpretations in some of the more "troubling" verses of scripture from a variety of religions.  

 

But the "every word is perfect" crowd only accepts an interpretation of a given passage if it agrees with their ideological preconceptions. No one like that thinks James 2 is perfect until they have twisted James' words into an unrecognizable shape. What they believe is perfect is not the word in James, but their own reinterpretation. It is their ideology that they believe is perfect, not James' message.

[cinepro]

I recently posted a short essay on my blog in response to the claim made by numerous New Atheists (most notably Sam Harris) that fundamentalist religionists who read their scriptural texts literally are to be considered the more pious and genuine believers. This claim serves the argument that religion is fundamentally dangerous and harmful, since most scriptures seem to command genocide and racism, etc. The point of my essay is that there's actually no such thing as scriptural literalism. One of the concluding paragraphs:

 

 

I'm interested in your thoughts. 

 

No one disagrees that "the scriptures" have stories where God commands genocide and racism.  The disagreement is over whether it is bad that He did such things, and the likelihood of it ever happening again. 

 

But the idea that there is no such thing as "scriptural literalism" is silly, unless you reduce the term to a semantic joke.  Obviously there are people (even in Mormonism) who take the scriptures much more "literally" than others.  Even among the leadership; is there any doubt that Joseph Fielding Smith was very much a "literalist" when it came to the scriptures?

 

As I've pointed out so often in the past, an excellent litmus test for the degree to which a person views the scriptures "literally" is the story of Noah and the Flood.  I would suggest that if a person believes that the story of Noah's flood as told in Genesis 6 - 8 actually happened and that the water covered the entire planet, then that's enough to be considered a "literalist".  There's no need to stretch the term to extreme "every word is perfect" caricatures.

Edited August 27, 2015 by cinepro

[ERayR]

But the "every word is perfect" crowd only accepts an interpretation of a given passage if it agrees with their ideological preconceptions. No one like that thinks James 2 is perfect until they have twisted James' words into an unrecognizable shape. What they believe is perfect is not the word in James, but their own reinterpretation. It is their ideology that they believe is perfect, not James' message.

 

True but the same can be said for the scripture is symbolic crowd.

[Brian 2.0]

But the "every word is perfect" crowd only accepts an interpretation of a given passage if it agrees with their ideological preconceptions. No one like that thinks James 2 is perfect until they have twisted James' words into an unrecognizable shape. What they believe is perfect is not the word in James, but their own reinterpretation. It is their ideology that they believe is perfect, not James' message.

 

But there's a big difference in wiggle room between the "every word is perfect" and "God uses imperfect men to deliver His word"

 

Regarding the often used genocide scripture in Samuel.  I see no way if you are in the literalist camp that you come to a conclusion that God actually DIDN'T command the killing of the infants.  Where if you are in the other camp you can say that God may not have actually commanded that part.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I recently posted a short essay on my blog in response to the claim made by numerous New Atheists (most notably Sam Harris) that fundamentalist religionists who read their scriptural texts literally are to be considered the more pious and genuine believers. This claim serves the argument that religion is fundamentally dangerous and harmful, since most scriptures seem to command genocide and racism, etc. The point of my essay is that there's actually no such thing as scriptural literalism. One of the concluding paragraphs:

 

 

I'm interested in your thoughts. 

It seems to me that the Peterson thread is a good example of this. We have scriptures which were interpreted for years to support a racist ideology. Most (though not all) in the church have now completely reinterpreted those scriptures to mean something completely different.

Edited August 27, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

But there's a big difference in wiggle room between the "every word is perfect" and "God uses imperfect men to deliver His word"

 

Regarding the often used genocide scripture in Samuel.  I see no way if you are in the literalist camp that you come to a conclusion that God actually DIDN'T command the killing of the infants.  Where if you are in the other camp you can say that God may not have actually commanded that part.

While this is true, no literalist members of the church today would even contemplate or attempt to justify any modern day genocides based on that scripture. Similarly, if I told my bishop God had commanded me to kill my son, he'd probably call the police, even though he literally believes the Abraham story. IOW they believe the scripture but reject the modern day application of such.

[maklelan]

True but the same can be said for the scripture is symbolic crowd.

 

Yes and no. Their sense of the function of scripture is not nearly as authoritarian as that of the "literalists," and they have a much, much better claim to objectivity and accuracy. They also tend not to impose ideological lenses on the texts; they allow for pluriformity and contradiction.

[Brian 2.0]

While this is true, no literalist members of the church today would even contemplate or attempt to justify any modern day genocides based on that scripture. Similarly, if I told my bishop God had commanded me to kill my son, he'd probably call the police, even though he literally believes the Abraham story. IOW they believe the scripture but reject the modern day application of such.

 

True.  I don't think Mormonism fall into the "dangerous" literalism that we're discussing here though.

 

I think Sam Harris is describing a niche in the religious world as a whole so he is being very selective to serve his argument, but I don't think he's setting up a straw man that simply doesn't exist.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[Bob Crockett]

The LDS Church does not depend upon scriptural literalism but upon being in harmony with the Brethren over the meaning of the scriptures.

 

One way to determine, at least today, how the Brethren interpret the scriptures is to see how they treat passages, especially controversial ones, in lesson manuals.  These manuals go through heavy-duty correlation.  They may be boring, but no teacher or sermonizer in the Church is justified in deviating from the core principles in those manuals.  

 

Thus, in the Church it isn't a question to ask as to whether the Adam and Eve story is literal but the question to ask is how the Brethren would want it taught.

 

I believe I've read extensively secular literature dealing with both the New and Old Testament, and I think that many LDS intellectuals seem compelled to take views consistent with the current consensus in that literature (even though much of it comes from atheists; Dever is my latest example) and often contrary to the manuals (and not acknowledge they conflict with the manuals).  So, paradoxically, they will agree with Dever as to the Bible but disagree with Coe as to the Book of Mormon.

 

When I teach Gospel Doctrine, although I find some of the secular views rather compelling, I believe that a condition to my calling was to teach consistent with the Brethren's views. 

Edited August 27, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[SeekingUnderstanding]

True.  I don't think Mormonism fall into the "dangerous" literalism that we're discussing here though.

Exactly. Mormons consider themselves scriptural literalists, but still reject the aspects of the morality presented they don't like. In other words despite being scriptural literalists, we support our current views with the scriptures, not the other way around.

[Brian 2.0]

Exactly. Mormons consider themselves scriptural literalists, but still reject the aspects of the morality presented they don't like. In other words despite being scriptural literalists, we support our current views with the scriptures, not the other way around.

 

I would say this is more the case with the members of the church and their views, and sometimes but not as much the case with the church teachings itself (echoing Bob's last paragraph in his post). 

Edited August 27, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[cinepro]

The LDS Church does not depend upon scriptural literalism but upon being in harmony with the Brethren over the meaning of the scriptures.

 

One way to determine, at least today, how the Brethren interpret the scriptures is to see how they treat passages, especially controversial ones, in lesson manuals.  These manuals go through heavy-duty correlation.  They may be boring, but no teacher or sermonizer in the Church is justified in deviating from the core principles in those manuals.  

 

Thus, in the Church it isn't a question to ask as to whether the Adam and Eve story is literal but the question to ask is how the Brethren would want it taught.

 

I believe I've read extensively secular literature dealing with both the New and Old Testament, and I think that many LDS intellectuals seem compelled to take views consistent with the current consensus in that literature (even though much of it comes from atheists; Dever is my latest example) and often contrary to the manuals (and not acknowledge they conflict with the manuals).  So, paradoxically, they will agree with Dever as to the Bible but disagree with Coe as to the Book of Mormon.

 

When I teach Gospel Doctrine, although I find some of the secular views rather compelling, I believe that a condition to my calling was to teach consistent with the Brethren's views. 

 

I will take a moment to add that my daughter had one of the worst seminary teachers of all time last year, and was glad to hear when she started telling me about how great the class was one week when they had a substitute.  Turns out it was none other than our own Bob Crockett. 

 

So apparently he's much better teaching about the gospel in Seminary than he is discussing it on message boards... 

[Bob Crockett]

Hah hah!.  I consider myself great at discussing it on message boards, and humble about it as well.

[ERayR]

Yes and no. Their sense of the function of scripture is not nearly as authoritarian as that of the "literalists," and they have a much, much better claim to objectivity and accuracy. They also tend not to impose ideological lenses on the texts; they allow for pluriformity and contradiction.

 

It is my observation there is not a bright line of demarcation between the two but rather a continuum.  Ideological lenses are imposed by everyone.  One may not admit it or recognize it but ones own ideology affects what they accept and the weight they give it.

Edited August 27, 2015 by ERayR

[maklelan]

It is my observation there is not a bright line of demarcation between the two but rather a continuum.  Ideological lenses are imposed by everyone.  One may not admit it or recognize it but ones own ideology affects what the accept and the weight they give it.

 

Yeah, it's certainly a continuum, but the qualitative differences between the approaches at the poles of that continuum make all the difference in the world within the context of the question.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I would say this is more the case with the members of the church and their views, and sometimes but not as much the case with the church teachings itself (echoing Bob's last paragraph in his post).

 

 

When I teach Gospel Doctrine, although I find some of the secular views rather compelling, I believe that a condition to my calling was to teach consistent with the Brethren's views.

 

And where do the Brethren's views come from? Whether you believe it is directly from God or "from negotiating between their group’s past, the needs of the present within a cultural context, and their interpretation (which is not literal) of scripture" we don't trace most of our doctrine directly to scripture with the exception of possibly the doctrine and covenants. Even there it is iffy. Take a look at the word of wisdom as revealed in D&C 89 vs what we practice today. Or take a look at the law of tithing (D&C 119) vs what teach today. Again we always cite section 89 and 119 when we talk about tithing and the WoW, but we use prooftexting to support our current theology rather than attempt to change our current theology to match scripture.

Edited August 27, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Bob Crockett]

 

 

 

And where do the Brethren's views come from? Whether you believe it is directly from God or "from negotiating between their group’s past, the needs of the present within a cultural context, and their interpretation (which is not literal) of scripture" we don't trace most of our doctrine directly to scripture with the exception of possibly the doctrine and covenants. Even there it is iffy. Take a look at the word of wisdom as revealed in D&C 89 vs what we practice today. Or take a look at the law of tithing (D&C 119) vs what teach today. Again we always cite section 89 and 119 when we talk about tithing and the WoW, but we use prooftexting to support our current theology rather than attempt to change our current theology to match scripture.

 

I don't consider a question to be a response to my point.  Where does your question lead you?  To stand up to the Church in a Gospel Doctrine class and announce that Asherah is the mother in heaven we should be worshiping?  That the Nephites were limited to MesoAmerica?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I don't consider a question to be a response to my point.  Where does your question lead you?  To stand up to the Church in a Gospel Doctrine class and announce that Asherah is the mother in heaven we should be worshiping?  That the Nephites were limited to MesoAmerica?

Sorry the response was to Brian not you! Brian referred to your last paragraph so I included it. 

[maklelan]

 

And where do the Brethren's views come from? Whether you believe it is directly from God or "from negotiating between their group’s past, the needs of the present within a cultural context, and their interpretation (which is not literal) of scripture" we don't trace most of our doctrine directly to scripture with the exception of possibly the doctrine and covenants. Even there it is iffy. Take a look at the word of wisdom as revealed in D&C 89 vs what we practice today. Or take a look at the law of tithing (D&C 119) vs what teach today. Again we always cite section 89 and 119 when we talk about tithing and the WoW, but we use prooftexting to support our current theology rather than attempt to change our current theology to match scripture.

 

How often are we reminded that the voice of the living prophet always trumps those of dead prophets?

[Bob Crockett]

How often are we reminded that the voice of the living prophet always trumps those of dead prophets?

 

And, indeed, no wonder the positions taken in manuals are most likely to represented the correlated views of the living prophets. 

 

The Josian temple reforms were justified and righteous, therefore, and not a corruption of true religion.

 

The Asherah pole in the temple was a corruption.

 

And so forth. 

[thesometimesaint]

To put a literalist interpretation of religion onto established science makes hash of both.