Analytics Posted December 1, 2021 Posted December 1, 2021 32 minutes ago, MrShorty said: @Analytics I agree that Parry's Ensign article is a good example of the kind of "Christian Fundamentalism" and/or "Biblical Literalism" that was present in the 20th century in the Church (perhaps especially among BYU's Rel Ed faculty, CES, and many on the correlation committees of the time). However, especially here in the 21st century, there are plenty of active, believing Latter-day Saints (some even on this board, it seems) who do not believe in Parry's fundamentalism. One notable example that I'm aware of is Ben Spackman who specifically took Parry's article to task: https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2014/02/mormon-appropriation-of-fundamentalism-and-its-outcomes/ For me, the problem isn't so much that articles like Parry's exist, but that the Church is so reticent to ever explicitly disavow these things. I expect it is the same kind of attitude that was expressed by (I think) Pres. McKay when Elder McConkie published Mormon Doctrine. In spite of the issues that the top leadership had with McConkie's book, they opted to not publicly disavow what he said for fear that such a disavowal would reduce Elder McConkie's influence among the members. It seems to me that the best thing the Church could do with Parry's article (and some other publications) is explicitly state that such is/was the belief of many Church members, but the Church does not officially believe such and such and that members are free to adopt other beliefs (including non-literal beliefs, allegorical beliefs of scriptural stories). But I'm not holding my breath for such a statement. To me, the whole concept of delimiting what the Church "officially believes" distracts from a more important point. The more important point is whether the people who call themselves God's prophets, seers, and revelators are actually a reliable source of truth. If we can't trust "the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets" with regards to whether the Flood was a literal, historical, global event, why should we trust them when they say we need to give 10% of our income to them in order to make it to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom after we're dead? In any case, I think its wonderful that so many people reject the fundamentalist teachings that are relayed in that article. They are on the right track. 2
Popular Post pogi Posted December 1, 2021 Popular Post Posted December 1, 2021 (edited) 11 hours ago, Islander said: My bishop in my very fist Ward as a convert in southern CA was a very accomplished scholar in the animal science realm but also a life long student of scripture. He taught me that "the scriptures mean what God intended it to mean to the people it was given then. And today it means exactly the same thing". It has served me well. Nothing makes me cringe like hearing: "this scripture means to me...(fill in the blank)..." Years ago I corrected a brother during a priesthood lesson in a ward in CO on account of such a statement. I reminded him that the scripture means what it means even if he never existed. Crickets.... The revelation of God anchored in scripture was directed at a particular people, at a specific time and it was given for a unique reason or circumstance. And that is fixed in the context. That is not what we teach and believe in our church. As President Oaks explained, this approach to the scriptures you describe is more typical among those who believe in a "closed canon". We don't view the scriptures as having one meaning for one time for one people, only to be interpreted in the context of the time. We hold that scriptures can have layers of meaning under different contexts, different times, and different people. They are open in that way. See President Oaks conference talk "Scripture Reading and Revelation": Quote Those who believe the scriptural canon is closed typically approach the reading of scriptures by focusing on what was meant at the time the scriptural words were spoken or written. In this approach, a passage of scripture may appear to have a single meaning and the reader typically relies on scholarship and historical methods to determine it. The Latter-day Saint approach is different. Professor Hugh Nibley illuminates this in his essay “The Prophets and the Scripture.” He observes that “men fool themselves when they think for a moment that they can read the scripture without ever adding something to the text, or omitting something from it. For in the wise words of St. Hilary, … ‘Scripture consists not in what one reads, but in what one understands.’” Consequently, he continues, “in the reading of the scripture we must always have an interpreter” (The World and the Prophets, The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, 12 vols., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1987, 3:202). He concludes: The question is not whether or not one shall add to the word of the scripture—thousands of volumes of learned commentary have already done that—but whether such addition shall come by the wisdom of men or the revelation of God” (ibid., p. 206). Latter-day Saints know that true doctrine comes by revelation from God, not by scholarship or worldly wisdom (see Moses 5:58). Similarly, the Apostle Paul wrote that we are not “sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God” (2 Cor. 3:5). Rather than trusting in our own interpretations of written texts, we rely on God and the glorious “ministration of the spirit” (2 Cor. 3:8). Here we encounter a new meaning of Paul’s familiar teaching that true believers are “ministers … of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life” (2 Cor. 3:6). Latter-day Saints know that learned or authoritative commentaries can help us with scriptural interpretation, but we maintain that they must be used with caution. One trouble with commentaries is that their authors sometimes focus on only one meaning, to the exclusion of others. As a result, commentaries, if not used with great care, may illuminate the author’s chosen and correct meaning but close our eyes and restrict our horizons to other possible meanings. Sometimes those other, less obvious meanings can be the ones most valuable and useful to us as we seek to understand our own dispensation and to obtain answers to our own questions. This is why the teaching of the Holy Ghost is a better guide to scriptural interpretation than even the best commentary. He continues: Quote ...we believe that God will give new revelations on the meaning of scriptures previously canonized, meanings that were not evident in earlier times. These new revelations are of two types: public and private. Public revelations on the meaning of earlier scriptures come through those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators. Examples of public revelations are the numerous additions and clarifications in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible and in the Doctrine and Covenants revelations on the meaning of Bible passages. (For example, see D&C 77 on the book of Revelation and D&C 113 on some prophecies in Isaiah.) These public revelations usually illuminate scriptural passages that are doctrinal rather than those that are descriptive or directive. Our belief in an open canon also includes private revelations to individual seekers of the meaning of existing scriptures. Such revelations are necessary because, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve observed, “Each pronouncement in the holy scriptures … is so written as to reveal little or much, depending on the spiritual capacity of the student” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1985, p. 71). The idea that scripture reading can lead to inspiration and revelation opens the door to the truth that a scripture is not limited to what it meant when it was written but may also include what that scripture means to a reader today. Even more, scripture reading may also lead to current revelation on whatever else the Lord wishes to communicate to the reader at that time. We do not overstate the point when we say that the scriptures can be a Urim and Thummim to assist each of us to receive personal revelation. Hence the "crickets..." Edited December 1, 2021 by pogi 7
MrShorty Posted December 1, 2021 Posted December 1, 2021 17 minutes ago, Analytics said: The more important point is whether the people who call themselves God's prophets, seers, and revelators are actually a reliable source of truth. If we can't trust "the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets" with regards to whether the Flood was a literal, historical, global event, why should we trust them when they say we need to give 10% of our income to them in order to make it to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom after we're dead? Amen! I have often thought that we don't do a very good job of dealing with prophetic fallibility, and this is, IMO, the central core of the issue. My only answer is the much maligned "cafeteria Mormonism" where I, personally, grant myself permission to pick and choose the things I trust them on. As long as I trust them on enough issues, I consider myself "in". If the scales ever tip to where I don't trust them on enough issues, I guess I will be "out". 3
CV75 Posted December 1, 2021 Posted December 1, 2021 15 minutes ago, MrShorty said: Amen! I have often thought that we don't do a very good job of dealing with prophetic fallibility, and this is, IMO, the central core of the issue. My only answer is the much maligned "cafeteria Mormonism" where I, personally, grant myself permission to pick and choose the things I trust them on. As long as I trust them on enough issues, I consider myself "in". If the scales ever tip to where I don't trust them on enough issues, I guess I will be "out". Can you explain why your being “in” or “out” of the Church rests on trusting the prophets enough, rather than, say, trusting God enough (however you personally understand Him and your relationship with Him to be)? I suppose one might also put the question as, “Do you trust God enough to be “out” of the Church?” 2
smac97 Posted December 1, 2021 Author Posted December 1, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Analytics said: Quote Quote Quote Quote If you stop believing that the Bible belongs to the genre "word of God" as Joseph Smith believed, "Word of God" is a "genre" of literature? Are you sure? My point is that Joseph Smith thought it was. He did? CFR, please. See the 8th Article of Faith. "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." Nothing in there about the "word of God" as a monolithic and categorical "genre" of "literature." One of the main points of the Saints Unscripted video in the OP is that the Bible is a compilation of various types of books from various types of genres: Quote Hey guys, so, C.S. Lewis once wrote, “the first qualification for judging any piece of workmanship from a corkscrew to a cathedral is to know what it is — what it was intended to do and how it is meant to be used.” In order to most effectively understand and use the Bible, we need to know what it was intended to do and how it is meant to be used. Today we’re going to be looking at just one key factor that will help us in that process. We’re going to talk about the importance of genre recognition. Let’s do it. Determining the genre of a modern book usually comes quite naturally. When you open a book today and it starts with the phrase, “once upon a time,” you instantly know that the story you’re about to read likely belongs to the genre, “fiction.” It’s not going to be a true story. When you open the encyclopedia you’re going to be able to tell right away that it isn’t a sci-fi novel. It belongs to the reference or information genre. You can also have multiple genres mashed together. For instance, Pride and Prejudice is primarily a romance novel. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies combines romance and satire and action, etc. The word “Bible” comes from this Greek term meaning, “the books.” The Bible is not just one book. It contains dozens of different books, written at different times, by different people, with sometimes different purposes. And not every book is part of the same genre. There’s historical narrative, there’s poetry, there’s apocalyptic literature, there’s allegory, etc. The challenge is that the books of the Bible are translations of ancient documents that didn’t come with an explanation of which genre each book belongs to. Determining which genre the original writers intended for their work is oftentimes really difficult. Sometimes, because we say the Bible is “true,” we assume that everything in it must therefore fit squarely into the genre, nonfiction. But that’s not an assumption the text itself backs up. And we cause problems for ourselves when we misinterpret a work’s genre. I think you are compounding the problem. Not only is it specious to declare the Bible to be of a single genre, it is likewise inaccurate and incorrect to characterize scripture as a "genre," and also inaccurate and incorrect to attribute to Joseph Smith the notion that he felt the Bible belonged to it. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: Quote How is this materially incompatible with the "modern view of the Bible" you point to above? Very incompatible. Believing that the Bible is a compilation, interpretation, and partial harmonization of even more ancient myths--many of which contradict each other--is different than believing that it was "correct as it came from the pen of the original writers." Ah. I think I'm starting to see the problem. Your italicizing "myths" seems to suggest that you are using "myth" to mean fictional / ahistorical, correct? For its pejorative connotations? See, e.g., here: Quote Since the term myth is widely used to imply that a story is not objectively true, the identification of a narrative as a myth can be highly controversial: many adherents of religions view their own religion's stories as true, and therefore object to those stories being characterized as myths, while seeing the stories of other religions as being myth. As such, some scholars label all religious narratives as myths for practical reasons, such as to avoid depreciating any one tradition because cultures interpret each other differently relative to one another.[14] Other scholars avoid using the term "myth" altogether and instead utilize different terms like "sacred history", "holy story", or simply "history" to avoid placing pejorative overtones on any sacred narrative.[15] In other words, you seem to be presupposing that which has yet to be demonstrated, and that in most instances can never be demonstrated. You then proceed to ridicule those who do not share your presupposition. That just does not work. I encourage you to go back and read Jeremy Smith's comment that I quoted previously. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: To be clear, you can believe whatever you want. You have my permission. I am sincere about that. Likewise. The difference here, I think, is that I am not presupposing my belief in events that happened thousands of years ago to be unassailably established "fact." I recognize that reasonable minds can disagree about such things. I do not disparage the intelligence or integrity of those who disagree with me about those events. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: My point is simply this. Historically, Mormonism took a the Bible pretty-much at face value. Well, yes and no. "At face value" can mean all sorts of things. Genesis is overflowing with poetic imagery, but also describes actual events, persons, etc. Also, from nearly the outset of the Church there have been leaders of the Church who have been quite comfortable with professing faith in the scriptures while also hewing to the best scientific knowledge of the day. Talmage and Widtsoe come most readily to mind. See, e.g., here: Quote Elders James E. Talmage and John A. Widtsoe, two LDS apostles, knew a thing or two about science. Before they were both ordained as special witnesses in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Elder Widtsoe was a chemist and Elder Talmage was a geologist. Both men were considered scholars in their respective fields. Both served terms as president of the University of Utah. Both men also demonstrated it was possible to balance academic and scientific pursuits while progressing spiritually. “The church supports and welcomes the growth of science. … The religion of the Latter-day Saints is not hostile to any truth, nor to scientific search for truth,” Elder Widtsoe said in his 1943 book “Evidences and Reconciliations.” Elder Widtsoe said science and religion both seek truth. “That they have occupied different fields of truth is a mere detail. The gospel accepts and embraces all truth; science is slowly expanding her arms, and reaching into the invisible domain, in search of truth. The two are meeting daily,” Elder Widtsoe wrote in his book "In Search of Truth: Comments on the Gospel and Modern Thought." “Religion has an equal right to try science. Either method, properly applied, leads to the same result: Truth is truth.” Elder Talmage was a professor of chemistry and geology at Brigham Young Academy from 1888 to 1893 and was president of the University of Utah from 1894 to 1897. In 1907, he resigned as a professor of geology at Utah to pursue a private practice as a consulting mining geologist. Given his interest in geology, one gospel topic that Elder Talmage studied extensively was the Creation as found in Genesis. He defended the scriptural account in his 1931 address titled “The Earth and Man.” “Discrepancies that trouble us now will diminish as our knowledge of pertinent facts is extended. The creator has made a record in the rocks for man to decipher; but He has also spoken directly regarding the main stages of progress by which the earth has been brought to be what it is,” wrote Elder Talmage, also an accomplished author and educator. So you'll understand why I think your characterization ("Historically, Mormonism took a the Bible pretty-much at face value") to be facile, inaccurate and inadequate. The Latter-day Saints have a rich history of embracing science and secular knowledge while also embracing scripture and revelation from God. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: The creation, fall, flood, etc. are all historical events that happened in the way the Bible describes. Way too facile. As Elder Talmage put it: “The opening chapters of Genesis … were never intended as a textbook of geology, archeology, earth-science or man-science. Holy scripture will endure, while the conceptions of men change with new discoveries.” See also here: Quote Moses 3:9. What Do the Two Trees Represent? Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote: “The scriptures set forth that there were in the Garden of Eden two trees. One was the tree of life, which figuratively refers to eternal life; the other was the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which figuratively refers to how and why and in what manner mortality and all that appertains to it came into being” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith [1985], 86). Elder McConkie was one of the most doctrinaire leaders of the Church, and yet he still understood that the Bible includes "figurative" elements. And here (same link) : Quote Moses 3:21–23. Adam’s Rib President Spencer W. Kimball taught that Eve was not literally created from Adam’s rib. He said: “The story of the rib, of course, is figurative” (“The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood,” Ensign, Mar. 1976, 71). See also this 1986 Ensign article by Gerald N. Lund: Quote What are we to do with all of the symbolic language in the Bible—the imagery, figurative expressions, parables, allegories, types, shadows, similes, and hyperbole? Sometimes this imagery is clear and powerful, but often it seems baffling and strange. Approximately 27 percent of the 1,184 pages of the Old Testament is made up of prophetic writings, or what the people at the time of Christ called simply “the prophets.” (See, for example, Luke 24:27, 44.) At almost any point in those writings we are immediately confronted by symbolic language. Sidney B. Sperry noted some years ago that this penchant for figurative language is partially due to the fact that the Bible is the product of Oriental or Eastern peoples—and Eastern peoples are much more prone to use imagery than are the Occidentals or Western cultures: “We ofttimes read our Bible as though its peoples were English or American and interpret their sayings in terms of our own background and psychology. But the Bible is actually an Oriental book. It was written centuries ago by Oriental people and primarily for Oriental people … “It may be of interest to contrast the speech of modern and ancient Palestinians with our own. In thought and speech the Oriental is an artist; the Occidental, on the other hand, may be thought of as an architect. When speaking, the Oriental paints a scene whose total effect is true, but the details may be inaccurate; the Occidental tends to draw diagrams accurate in detail.” (Ensign, May 1972, pp. 29–30.) While this difference provides some interesting challenges for the modern reader in our Western civilization, those challenges are not insurmountable, and when they are met, the returns can be productive and satisfying. Since a thorough explanation of the use of symbolic imagery in the Old Testament, or even in “the prophets,” would require a work far beyond the scope of this article, we shall only give a general introduction to the subject. This introduction, however, should serve to help decipher imagery wherever it is found in the scriptures. The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I make this broad declaration, that whenever God gives a vision of an image, or beast, or figure of any kind, He always holds Himself responsible to give a revelation or interpretation of the meaning thereof, otherwise we are not responsible or accountable for our belief in it. Don’t be afraid of being damned for not knowing the meaning of a vision or figure, if God has not given a revelation or interpretation of the subject.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., p. 291.) There are occasional uses of figurative imagery, such as Ezekiel’s “wheels” (see Ezek. 1:15–21), for which the Lord has not yet given us the interpretation. But for the most part, we do have the keys for understanding the symbolic imagery used by the Lord and his prophets. Six guidelines can aid us as we deal with figurative language in the scriptures: 1. Do the scriptures give the interpretation of the symbol? Often the Lord reveals the keys to the imagery right in the scriptures. A classic example is the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. (See Dan. 2:19, 31–45.) ... 2. Do the writings of modern prophets help us interpret the symbolic imagery? Sometimes the key to understanding a symbol may not be found directly in the scriptures, but prophets of the Restoration have helped clarify the meaning. ... 4. Let the nature of the symbol teach you. While the Hebrews loved imagery and used it heavily, they did not choose their symbolism arbitrarily. They drew their imagery from the objects and events of everyday life and made spiritual parallels. This is a very important point, for often we can let the symbol itself teach us about its significance. I guess my point is simply this. Your statement that "Historically, Mormonism took a the Bible pretty-much at face value" is substantially inaccurate and misleading. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: The Book of Mormon dovetails perfectly in all its details into that narrative of the world. From that literalist viewpoint, it all fits together very nicely. This is likewise inaccurate and misleading. To be sure, we have harbored some incorrect notions about the Bible. Everyone does. But we've never had the "literalist viewpoint" about the scriptures that you ascribe to us. See the above 1986 article by Gerald Lund. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: When you get sophisticated about it and try to understand what the Bible actually is, what was actually written, what the strengths and weaknesses are of the KJV translation, etc., things get more complicated. I agree. This is why I thought the Saints Unscripted video was worth posting. I think flawed approaches to scripture can inhibit our ability to comprehend it, whether the flaw is borne of excessive literalism (which, with some few exceptions, I don't think is fairly attributed to the Latter-day Saints) or borne of excessive scientism (e.g., here, here, and here). 1 hour ago, Analytics said: The more you understand the truth and reality about the Bible, the more obvious it becomes that the BoM is based upon a simplistic 19th-century American interpretation of the KJV, not upon ancient pristine truth that was "correct as it came from the pen of the original writers." It's kind of strange how critics of religionists end up circling back around to their own brand of fundamentalism. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: Quote Again, gotta love how your conclusory opinion is a "fact" to be "realize{d}" and "accept{ed}." The rest of us are just rubes who have not yet experienced an "epiphany" sufficient to enlighten us to accept Analytics' say-so. Maybe I just don't have the intelligence to do the mental gymnastics that you do. You are only further proving my point. To disagree with you is to be ignorant or stupid or dishonest. To disagree with you is to resort to "mental gymnastics." For you, there is no room for principles, reasoned disagreement. It's your way or the highway. That's too bad. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: So here are my questions to you: 1- What is the genre of the story of the tower of babel? This is addressed in the Saints Unscripted video: Quote The word “Bible” comes from this Greek term meaning, “the books.” The Bible is not just one book. It contains dozens of different books, written at different times, by different people, with sometimes different purposes. And not every book is part of the same genre. There’s historical narrative, there’s poetry, there’s apocalyptic literature, there’s allegory, etc. And here: Quote Determining which genre the original writers intended for their work is oftentimes really difficult. Sometimes, because we say the Bible is “true,” we assume that everything in it must therefore fit squarely into the genre, nonfiction. But that’s not an assumption the text itself backs up. And we cause problems for ourselves when we misinterpret a work’s genre. For example, Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Is it nonfiction? Is it a true story? Think about it. At the beginning, it says that this stuff happened in England in 932 A.D. England is a real place. 932 A.D. was a real time. Some say that even King Arthur might have actually existed. So, is this story true? No! Of course not. It is very clearly a satirical comedy. If you don’t catch onto that, though, this movie is going to leave you with some significant questions about history and a potentially debilitating fear of rabbits. And here: Quote Let’s look at an example from the Bible: The parable of the prodigal son. Is it historically accurate? Did the events described actually happen? No. It’s a parable. It’s a fictional story meant to teach us a lesson. Nobody has an issue with the parables being fictional because their genre in the New Testament is fairly clear. Before we move on let that idea sink in — it’s not a problem that the Bible sometimes uses fictional stories to teach us divine truth. It was like… Christ’s preferred method of teaching. And here: Quote So Christ’s parables are obviously fictional and nobody bats an eye. People get more defensive, though, when genre in the Bible is less clear. For example, what is the genre of the Book of Jonah? Now, this is a controversial subject and most Christians (including Latter-day Saints) might disagree with me on this. Granted, this probably isn’t an issue where your salvation hangs in the balance, but the genre you assign the Book of Jonah will influence the questions you ask about it. There are many fantastic Christians (including Latter-day Saints and past Latter-day Saint leaders) who believe Jonah is straight-up narrative nonfiction — historical fact. Many other fantastic Christians believe that the original author intended this work to be a sort of extended satirical parable. Personally, I’m in the parable camp, but you’re certainly free to disagree if that’s what makes the most sense to you. And if you’re thinking, “well Jesus references Jonah in the New Testament so it has to be a true story,” go read this article by Ben Spackman. Hebrew Bible and Old Testament scholar Steven Mckenzie wrote, “The attempt to read Jonah as history gives priority to an assumption about its genre over its actual content. A historical reading ignores or struggles to explain the clear exaggerations, caricatures, and ridiculous features that are essential to the nature of the story as satirical fiction. Worst of all, the historical reading of Jonah … runs the risk of missing the book’s richness. It misleads the reader into focusing on relatively insignificant details—such as whether a man could live in a whale for three days—and missing its main point—the stupidity of bigotry.” The story of Jonah seems intentionally saturated with rich irony. Everyone and everything is more faithful to God than the prophet himself. The pagan mariners are offering sacrifices to Jehovah, the fish obeys God, the wicked Ninevites, and even their animals are repenting, while Jonah, the prophet, is being a bit of a turd the whole time. And here: Quote Not getting the genre of a book right can be distracting, leading to the wrong questions, and can even lead to challenges of faith. If Jonah’s story is a parable, questions about whether people can survive inside of fish are irrelevant and totally missing the point of the story. If you want to try to pigeon-hole the Tower of Babel into one single and exclusive "genre," have at it. You are only proving the point of the video. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: 2- What genre is the Book of Mormon in general and the Book of Ether in particular? In general, I think the Book of Mormon is more homogenous and consistent in terms of its form and content. See, e.g., here: Quote KnoWhy #480 “Mormon Abridging the Plates” via LDS Media Library “Did I not declare my words unto you, which were written by this man, like as one crying from the dead, yea, even as one speaking out of the dust?” Moroni 10:27 The Know The Book of Mormon describes itself as “an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites” as well as “an abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared,” which was “sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God” (Book of Mormon Title Page). The Book of Mormon’s claimed ancient provenance–––its purported authors, compilers, and editors, as well as their source material–––is very clearly delineated throughout its pages.1 So too are its claimed ancient historical settings.2 To cite just one example, Mosiah 2–5 preserves a speech purportedly delivered by an ancient king named Benjamin around the year 124 B.C. in the land of Zarahemla and recorded by scribes who “sent forth” his words to the people (Mosiah 2:8). Joseph Smith, the “author and proprietor” and “translator” of the Book of Mormon,3 provided explicit accounts throughout his life as to how he produced the book.4 According to his own description, Joseph was visited by an angel on the evening of September 21, 1823. Joseph identified this angel on multiple occasions as Moroni, the final author and editor of the Book of Mormon.5 Moroni informed young Joseph of “a book . . . written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang” (Joseph Smith–––History 1:34).6 These plates were delivered to Joseph by the angel Moroni four years later to the day (JS–––History 1:59).7 Through divinely prepared seer stones, Joseph was able to translate the record by “the gift and power of God.”8 Joseph Smith set some very high stakes with his account of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. As one historian recognized, Joseph “rested his own veracity, the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the reality of his prophetic mission, and the legitimacy of his church on the existence of the plates”9 In other words, Joseph Smith made stark and matter-of-fact assertions about the angel, the plates, and the method of the translation. Therefore, if these declarations are not true, then his credibility as an inspired prophet, as well as the credibility of his claim of having restored the church of Jesus Christ, is fatally undermined.10 The coming forth of the Book of Mormon under such dramatic and miraculous circumstances compels everyone to decide for him or herself whether to accept the book–––and thereby the statements of Joseph Smith–––or not. “The strong historical assertions of the [Book of Mormon] seem to allow for only three possible origins,” scholar Grant Hardy observed. “As a miraculously translated historical document, as a fraud (perhaps a pious one) written by Joseph Smith, or as a delusion (perhaps sincerely believed) that originated in Smith’s subconscious.”11Ultimately everyone must make a decision at some point about whether the book is what it claims to be. In order to bypass this situation, some have proposed that the Book of Mormon should be read as non-historical and yet as inspired scripture–––that is, as nineteenth century inspired fiction.12 ... These efforts to read the Book of Mormon as “inspired fiction” may be well-meaning, but they are logically incoherent. Daniel Peterson has succinctly laid out the logical problem with this theory. “If the plates really existed, somebody made them. And if no Nephites existed to make them, then either Joseph Smith, or God, or somebody else seems to have been engaged in simple fraud. The testimony of [those associated with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon] exists, I think, to force a dichotomous choice: true or false?”16 Failing to provide an explanation for this dichotomy ignores an essential aspect of the Book of Mormon.17 Even worse, rather than preserving the Book of Mormon’s inspired teachings as intended, the “inspired fiction” theory actually harms the believability and power of the book’s testimony of Jesus Christ. “From the title page to the book’s final declaration,” wrote Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, “this testament reveals, examines, underscores, and illuminates the divine mission of Jesus Christ. . . . The Book of Mormon has many purposes, but this one transcends all others.”18 The Book of Mormon attempts to persuade all men and women that “Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God” (Book of Mormon Title Page) not only by describing the inspired teachings of ancient prophets who foretold his birth, life, ministry, Atonement, death, and Resurrection, but also by narrating the actual appearance of the resurrected Jesus to the ancient Nephites in the New World (3 Nephi 11–26). If these ancient prophets never existed, and if a resurrected Jesus never actually appeared to the ancient Nephites, then the Book of Mormon loses all its credibility as another testament of Jesus Christ. If we try to get down to brass tacks and attach one or more of the various categories of literary genres to The Book of Mormon, I would go with these: Epic poetry: narrative poetry about extraordinary feats occurring in a time before history, involving religious underpinnings and themes. Myth: traditional narrative, often based in part on historical events, that reveals human behavior and natural phenomena by its symbolism; often pertaining to the actions of the gods. Parable Personal narrative Historical: works that take place in the past—which can be real, imagined, or a combination of both.[1] Many such works involve actual historical figures or historical events within historical settings. Philosophical Realist: works that are set in a time and place that are true to life (i.e. that could actually happen in the real world), abiding by real-world laws of nature. They depict real people, places, and stories in order to be as truthful as possible. Theological: fiction that explores the theological ideas that shape attitudes towards religious expression. Visionary Biography: a written narrative of a person's life; an autobiography is a self-written biography. Journalistic writing: reporting on news and current events Self-help: a work written with information intended to instruct or guide readers on solving personal problems. Apocalyptic literature - details the authors' visions of the end times as revealed by an angel or other heavenly messenger. Bildungsroman - "coming of age" story. The German word "Bildung" can mean both "education" and "self-development." Biography Autobiography Spiritual autobiography Commentary Diaries and journals History Genealogy Narrative People's history Narrative history Lament Law (Moral) Law (Natural) Letter Philosophy Metaphysics Poetry Religious text Apocalyptic Apologetics Covenant Creed Epistle Gospel Homily Liturgy Mysticism Prayer Philosophy Philosophical theology Philosophy of religion Religious epistemology Prophecy Blessing/Curse Messianic prophecy Divination Prediction Vision Special revelation Scripture Song Cosmology Christology Ecclesiology Eschatology Hamartiology Wisdom literature Testament 1 hour ago, Analytics said: 3- How do you reconcile #1 and #2 with each other and with what we know about actual world history? I don't understand the question. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: 4- As you get more sophisticated in how you interpret the story of the tower of babel, does that make it easier or harder to believe the Church's orthodox position on the Book of Mormon? Easier. Much. See here: Why Is the Book of Mormon’s Historical Authenticity So Important? Thanks, -Smac Edited December 1, 2021 by smac97 4
mfbukowski Posted December 1, 2021 Posted December 1, 2021 2 hours ago, smac97 said: In this thread we are speaking about events that occurred, or did not occur, thousands and thousands of years ago. Events that may, or may not have, involved divine involvement in them. Events that may, or may not have, resulted in recorded recollections that were transmitted down through millennia via very imperfect means (as Jeremy Smith put it: "records of memories of records of memories of records of memories of dreams and visions and hopes and sorrows..."). I recognize that there is plenty of room for reasoned disagreement about the verity and accuracy of these records. But your approach does not seem to allow for that. In your view, the lack of verity/accuracy is a foregone conclusion. A "fact" to be "realize{d}" and "accept{ed}." The rest of us are just rubes who have not yet experienced an "epiphany" sufficient to enlighten us to accept your conclusory opinion about disputed events that happened (or did not happen) thousands of years ago. Exactly what I think I have been saying forever, said much better. Thanks 1
Calm Posted December 1, 2021 Posted December 1, 2021 (edited) 19 minutes ago, smac97 said: Way too facile. As Elder Talmage put it: “The opening chapters of Genesis … were never intended as a textbook of geology, archeology, earth-science or man-science. Holy scripture will endure, while the conceptions of men change with new discoveries.” Also BY called many literalist interpretations of the Bible “baby stories”…Which rarely are written in historically accurate and technically precise ways. “President Young announced to the Saints who were assembled in the Tabernacle on Temple Square in the Fall of 1853, “You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. . . . I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child.”” https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2009_Brigham_Youngs_Teachings_On_Adam.pdf Edited December 1, 2021 by Calm 3
smac97 Posted December 1, 2021 Author Posted December 1, 2021 1 hour ago, Analytics said: To me, the whole concept of delimiting what the Church "officially believes" distracts from a more important point. The more important point is whether the people who call themselves God's prophets, seers, and revelators are actually a reliable source of truth. This is a fair point. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: If we can't trust "the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets" with regards to whether the Flood was a literal, historical, global event, why should we trust them when they say we need to give 10% of our income to them in order to make it to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom after we're dead? This is addressed at length in the Saints Unscripted piece: Quote Let’s look at an example from the Bible: The parable of the prodigal son. Is it historically accurate? Did the events described actually happen? No. It’s a parable. It’s a fictional story meant to teach us a lesson. Nobody has an issue with the parables being fictional because their genre in the New Testament is fairly clear. Before we move on let that idea sink in — it’s not a problem that the Bible sometimes uses fictional stories to teach us divine truth. It was like… Christ’s preferred method of teaching. So Christ’s parables are obviously fictional and nobody bats an eye. People get more defensive, though, when genre in the Bible is less clear. For example, what is the genre of the Book of Jonah? Now, this is a controversial subject and most Christians (including Latter-day Saints) might disagree with me on this. Granted, this probably isn’t an issue where your salvation hangs in the balance, but the genre you assign the Book of Jonah will influence the questions you ask about it. There are many fantastic Christians (including Latter-day Saints and past Latter-day Saint leaders) who believe Jonah is straight-up narrative nonfiction — historical fact. Many other fantastic Christians believe that the original author intended this work to be a sort of extended satirical parable. Personally, I’m in the parable camp, but you’re certainly free to disagree if that’s what makes the most sense to you. And if you’re thinking, “well Jesus references Jonah in the New Testament so it has to be a true story,” go read this article by Ben Spackman. Hebrew Bible and Old Testament scholar Steven Mckenzie wrote, “The attempt to read Jonah as history gives priority to an assumption about its genre over its actual content. A historical reading ignores or struggles to explain the clear exaggerations, caricatures, and ridiculous features that are essential to the nature of the story as satirical fiction. Worst of all, the historical reading of Jonah … runs the risk of missing the book’s richness. It misleads the reader into focusing on relatively insignificant details—such as whether a man could live in a whale for three days—and missing its main point—the stupidity of bigotry.” The story of Jonah seems intentionally saturated with rich irony. Everyone and everything is more faithful to God than the prophet himself. The pagan mariners are offering sacrifices to Jehovah, the fish obeys God, the wicked Ninevites, and even their animals are repenting, while Jonah, the prophet, is being a bit of a turd the whole time. Not getting the genre of a book right can be distracting, leading to the wrong questions, and can even lead to challenges of faith. If Jonah’s story is a parable, questions about whether people can survive inside of fish are irrelevant and totally missing the point of the story. But, to be clear, Jonah is not a parable just because the fish thing may be hard to believe. I believe in miracles. All Christians who believe Jonah is parable obviously still believe in miracles. This isn’t about taking stuff you find hard to believe in the Bible and giving yourself an out by reinterpreting it as symbolic or metaphorical. This isn’t about lacking faith or doubting what God is capable of doing. This is about being aware of our assumptions and trying to understand how the original authors of the Bible intended their works to be read from the get-go. There are also a number of links that may be of interest. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: In any case, I think its wonderful that so many people reject the fundamentalist teachings that are relayed in that article. They are on the right track. Are they, though? You think Ben Spackman is on the same "track" as you regarding the Bible, the Book of Mormon, etc.? Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted December 1, 2021 Author Posted December 1, 2021 1 hour ago, MrShorty said: Quote The more important point is whether the people who call themselves God's prophets, seers, and revelators are actually a reliable source of truth. If we can't trust "the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets" with regards to whether the Flood was a literal, historical, global event, why should we trust them when they say we need to give 10% of our income to them in order to make it to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom after we're dead? Amen! I have often thought that we don't do a very good job of dealing with prophetic fallibility, and this is, IMO, the central core of the issue. I don't understand. You say "Amen," as if you agree with Analytics, who is implicitly calling for infallibility, but then then you go on to say that "we don't do a very good job of dealing with prophetic fallibility." I actually agree with that second part. I think that's the flaw in Analytics' position. I commented on this back in 2019: Quote Are some members losing trust in their leaders because they have implicit expectations of, and demands for, prophetic infallibility? Are some members running afoul of Mormon 9:31? "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been." Are some members failing to seek wisdom from the "best books" per D&C 88 and 109? Are some members playing Othello to {Jeremy} Runnells' Iago? I think the answer to these questions is often "yes." 1 hour ago, MrShorty said: My only answer is the much maligned "cafeteria Mormonism" where I, personally, grant myself permission to pick and choose the things I trust them on. I think we are supposed to examine the words of our leaders. Consider these remarks by Kent Jackson: Quote The more restrictive view of what constitutes scripture would include only what is called "the scriptures"-that is, the four standard works: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These constitute the canonized, authoritative corpus of revealed writings against which all else is measured. President Joseph Fielding Smith taught, "My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them…. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine" (DS 3:203). And these by then-Elder Harold B. Lee of the Twelve: Quote It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer and revelator — please note that one exception {when he is speaking as the prophet, taught from earlier in the paragraph} — you may immediately say, “Well, that is his own idea.” And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them “standard” — it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it. And these remarks by President Lee: Quote If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth. (The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, Reports and Discourses, p.69) And then there is this excellent compilation from FAIR: Quote Nineteenth Century Joseph Smith “a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such.” [1] Altho’ I do wrong, I do not the wrongs that I am charg’d with doing—the wrong that I do is thro’ the frailty of human nature like other men. No man lives without fault. Do you think that even Jesus, if he were here would be without fault in your eyes? They said all manner of evil against him—they all watch’d for iniquity….When I do the best I can—when I am accomplishing the greatest good, then the most evils are got up against me. – 31 August 1842 [2] I never told you I was perfect—but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught—must I then be thrown away as a thing of nought? – 12 May 1844 [3] 1854 …it is not the place for any person to correct any person who is superior to them, but ask the Father in the name of Jesus to bind him up from speaking false principles. I have known many times I have preached wrong. [4] 1867 We must all learn to depend upon God and upon Him alone. Why, the very man upon whom we think we can rely with unbounded confidence, and trust with all we possess, may disappoint us sometimes, but trust in God and He never fails. [5] The men who hold the Priesthood are but mortal men; they are fallible men. … No human being that ever trod this earth was free from sin, excepting the Son of God. … [6] 1858 Why do you not open the windows of heaven and get revelation for yourself? and not go whining around and saying, “do you not think that you may be mistaken? Can a Prophet or an Apostle be mistaken?” Do not ask me any such question, for I will acknowledge that all the time, but I do not acknowledge that I designedly lead this people astray one hair’s breadth from the truth, and I do not knowingly do a wrong, though I may commit many wrongs, and so may you. But I overlook your weaknesses, and I know by experience that the Saints lift their hearts to God that I may be led right. If I am thus borne off by your prayers and faith, with my own, and suffered to lead you wrong, it proves that your faith is vain. Do not worry. [7] 1879 I hope what I have said may be blessed to your profit. If I have said any unwise thing, forget it. If I have said any improper thing, I hope it will pass from your minds, and that which is good, cling to you. [8] And then, we have bishops among us. We will treat them courteously. Have they weaknesses? Yes, they are men just like we are. “What,” say you, “have you weaknesses?” Yes, lots of them. I wish I had not sometimes, and then again I don’t wish so. [9] 1883 Now, was not Joseph Smith a mortal man? Yes. A fallible man? Yes. Had he not weaknesses? Yes, he acknowledged them himself, and did not fail to put the revelations on record in this book [10] wherein God reproved him. His weaknesses were not concealed from the people. He was willing that people should know that he was mortal, and had failings. And so with Brigham Young. Was not he a mortal man, a man who had weaknesses? He was not a God. He was not an immortal being. He was not infallible. No, he was fallible. And yet when he spoke by the power of God, it was the word of God to this people. [11] The First Presidency cannot claim, individually or collectively, infallibility. The infallibility is not given to men. They are fallible. [12] 1891 Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop; an apostle, or a president; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place, they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God alone, and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. They could still see that He is just and true, that truth is lovely in His sight, and the pure in heart are dear to Him. Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or men. Therefore, my brethren and sisters, seek after the Holy Spirit and His unfailing testimony of God and His work upon the earth. Rest not until you know for yourselves that God has set His hand to redeem Israel, and prepare a people for His coming. [13] 1898 I saw Joseph Smith the Prophet do things which I did not approve of; and yet…I thanked God that He would put upon a man who had these imperfections the power and authority which He placed upon him…for I knew I myself had weaknesses and I thought there was a chance for me. These same weaknesses…I knew were in Heber C. Kimball, but my knowing this did not impair them in my estimation. I thanked God I saw these imperfection. [14] Twentieth Century 1907 We can and do know the truth with reference to the matters that concern our salvation . . . But with reference to matters involving merely questions of administration and policy in the Church; matters that do not involve the great and central truths of the gospel—these afford a margin wherein all the human imperfections and limitations of man, even of prophets and apostles, may be displayed…. when you take into account human weaknesses, imperfection, prejudice, passion, bias, it is too much to hope for human nature that man will constantly thus walk linked with God. And so we make this distinction between a man speaking sometimes under the influence of prejudice and pre–conceived notions, and the utterances of a man who, in behalf of the Church of God, and having the requisite authority, and holding the requisite position, may, upon occasion, lay aside all prejudice, all pre–conception, and stand ready and anxious to receive the divine impression of God’s Spirit. [15] 1941 Is anyone so simple as to believe he is serving the Lord when he opposes the President? Of course, the President is not infallible. He makes no claims to infallibility. But when in his official capacity he teaches and advises the members of the Church relative to their duties, let no man who wants to please the Lord say aught against the counsels of the President. [16] 1954 There have been rare occasions when even the President of the Church in his preaching and teaching has not been “moved upon by the Holy Ghost.” You will recall the Prophet Joseph declared that a prophet is not always a prophet….This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where a subsequent President of the Church and the people themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not “moved upon by the Holy Ghost. How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”? The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest. [17] We are not infallible in our judgment, and we err, but our constant prayer is that the Lord will guide us in our decisions, and we are trying so to live that our minds will be open to His inspiration. [18] Hugh B. Brown: The only way I know of by which the teachings of any person or group may become binding upon the church is if the teachings have been reviewed by all the brethren, submitted ot the highest councils of the church, and then approved by the whole body of the church…I do not doubt that the brethren have often spoken under inspiration and given new emphasis—perhaps even a new explanation or interpretation—of church doctrine, but that does not become binding upon the church unless and until it is submitted to the scrutiny of the rest of the brethren and later to the vote of the people. Again, we are only bound by the four standard works and are not required to defend what any man or woman says outside of them. [19] 1956 If I should say something which is contrary to that which is written and approved by the Church generally, no one is under obligation to accept it. Everything that I say and everything that any other person says must square itself with that which the Lord has revealed, or it should be rejected. [20] 1959 Joseph Smith, as prophets were and as prophets are, was subject to disappointment, even to despair; to illness, to fatigue, to frustration, and even to failure. He was just a man, after all, and he had no special immunity from any of the realities of life that prevail for all the other beings who have ever been born. [21] 1964 It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator––please note that one exception––you may immediately say, “Well, that is his own idea!” And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them “standard”––it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false; regardless of the position of the man who says it. [22] 1965 There have been times when even the President of the Church has not been moved upon by the Holy Ghost. There is, I suppose you’d say, a classic story of Brigham Young in the time when Johnston’s army was on the move. The Saints were all inflamed, and President Young had his feelings whetted to fighting pitch. He stood up in the morning session of general conference and preached a sermon vibrant with defiance at the approaching army, declaring an intention to oppose them and drive them back. In the afternoon he rose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address the tempo of which was the exact opposite of the morning sermon. [23] 1966 With all their inspiration and greatness, prophets are yet mortal men with imperfections common to mankind in general. They have their opinions and prejudices and are left to work out their own problems without inspiration in many instances. Joseph Smith recorded that he “visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that ‘a prophet is always a prophet’; but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.” (Teachings, p. 278.) Thus the opinions and views even of prophets may contain error unless those opinions and views are inspired by the Spirit. Inspired statements are scripture and should be accepted as such. (D. & C. 68:4.) Since “the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” (1 Cor. 14:32), whatever is announced by the presiding brethren as counsel for the Church will be the voice of inspiration. But the truth or error of any uninspired utterance of an individual will have to be judged by the standard works and the spirit of discernment and inspiration that is in those who actually enjoy the gift of the Holy Ghost. [24] Whether that happened or not, it illustrates a principle: that the Lord can move upon His people but they may speak on occasions their own opinions. [25] 1980 The prophets, as they walk and live among men, are common, ordinary men. Men called to apostolic positions are given a people to redeem. Theirs is the responsibility to lead those people in such a way that they win the battles of life and conquer the ordinary temptations and passions and challenges. And then, speaking figuratively, it is as though these prophets are tapped on the shoulder and reminded: “While you carry such responsibility to help others with their battles, you are not excused from your own challenges of life. You too will be subject to passions, temptations, challenges. Win those battles as best you can.” Some people are somehow dissatisfied to find in the leading servants of the Lord such ordinary mortals. They are disappointed that there is not some obvious mystery about those men; it is almost as if they are looking for the strange and the occult. To me, however, it is a great testimony that the prophets anciently and the prophets today are called out from the ranks of the ordinary men. It should not lessen our faith, for example, to learn that Elijah was discouraged at times, even despondent. (See 1Kgs.19:4.) This calling forth of ordinary men for extraordinary purposes is as evident during the Savior’s earthly mission as in former and later eras. [26] 1981 Now my divine commission and your divine commission is number one, to teach the principles of the gospel; number two, to teach them out of the standard works; number three, to teach them by the power of the Holy Ghost; number four, to apply them to the situation at hand; and number five, to bear a personal witness, a witness born of the Spirit that the doctrine that is taught is true. That is the teacher’s divine commission. I do not always measure up to that by any means. I guess the brethren of whom I am one do as much preaching and speaking in Church congregations as anyone, unless it is the seminary and institute teachers. There are times when I struggle and strive to get a message over and just do not seem to myself to be getting in tune with the Spirit. The fact is, it is a lot harder for me to choose what ought to be said, what subject ought to be considered, than it is for me to get up and preach it. I am always struggling and trying to get the inspiration to know what ought to be said at general conference, or in a stake conference, or whatever. If we labor at it and if we struggle, the Spirit will be given by the prayer of faith. If we do our part we will improve and grow in the things of the Spirit until we get to a position where we can, being in tune, say what the Lord wants said. That is what is expected of us. [27] 1987 To keep ourselves unspotted from the world….includes being aware that God’s work on earth is done by human beings, all of whom have some weaknesses. It encompasses the ability to look for the good accomplished rather than being disillusioned when human failings surface. It includes resisting the urge to proclaim such weaknesses so adamantly that the basic good is overshadowed and testimonies waver. [28] 1989 We make no claim of infallibility or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators. [29] We who have been called to lead the Church are ordinary men and women with ordinary capacities struggling to administer a church which grows at such a pace as to astound even those who watch it closely. Some are disposed to find fault with us; surely that is easy for them to do. But they do not examine us more searchingly than we examine ourselves. A call to lead is not an exemption from the challenges of life. We seek for inspiration in the same way that you do, and we must obey the same laws which apply to every member of the Church. We are sorry for our inadequacies, sorry we are not better than we are. We can feel, as you can see, the effect of the aging process as it imposes limitations upon His leaders before your very eyes. [30] 1991 Every student of church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among church leaders since the Church was organized. [31] …even with the best of intentions, it [the governance of the Church by mortal priesthood holders] does not always work the way it should. Human nature may express itself on occasion, but not to the permanent injury of the work. [32] 1994 The members’ faith in the Brethren as living Apostles and prophets not only provides the needed direction but also clearly sustains those leaders in their arduous chores. There is more to it than this, however. Sustaining them also means that we realize those select men are conscious of their own imperfections; each is even grateful that the other Brethren have strengths and talents he may not have. The gratitude of the Brethren for being so sustained thus includes appreciation for members’ willingness to overlook the imperfections of the overseers. The faithful realize the Apostles are working out their salvation, too, including the further development of the Christlike virtues. Serious discipleship requires us all to be “on the way to perfection” rather than thinking we are already in the arrival lounge. [33] 1995 I’ve known a few prophets. You’ll hear them criticized and attacked, and people will sometimes talk about their failures or their weaknesses, because they’re not perfect. [34] Clearly, my problem and your problem is to hear the word of God from and through imperfect teachers and leaders. [35] Twenty-First Century 2001 Good but imperfect prophets are especially likely to be slandered. Nor are they immune from trials. In fact, of the responsibilities of priesthood leaders, the Prophet Joseph Smith said, “The higher the authority, the greater the difficulty of the station.” President John Taylor further said, “God tries people according to the position they occupy.” Near the end, the Prophet noted, “I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” The Prophet Joseph, then and since, has been subjected to intense mortal scrutiny. Yet, as prophesied, many in the world ever continue to “inquire after [his]name” (D&C 122:1). [36] 2012 A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find. The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni: “Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father … ; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been” (Ether 12:6). [37] At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader past or present necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well considered, opinion not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that a prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such. [38] 2013 We should be careful not to claim for Joseph Smith perfections he did not claim for himself. He need not have been superhuman to be the instrument in God’s hands that we know him to be. In May 1844 Joseph declared, “I never told you I was perfect, but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” And he had commented earlier, “Although I do wrong, I do not the wrongs I’m charged with doing. The wrong that I do is through the frailty of human nature like other men. No man lives without fault. Do you think that even Jesus, if he were here, would be without fault in your eyes? His enemies said all manner of evil against him, and they all watched for iniquity in him.” Joseph was a mortal man striving to fulfill an overwhelming divinely appointed mission against all odds. The wonder is not that he ever displayed human failings, but that he succeeded in his mission. His fruits are both undeniable and incomparable. [39] And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine. I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes. In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.” This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth. It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men. [40] https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Prophets_are_not_infallible/Quotations My rule of thumb is to give a presumption of good faith to the Brethren. To give them the benefit of the doubt. To assume that what they are saying is in accordance with the Standard Works, and with the Spirit. Again, I think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time. However, although I give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt, this is - in legal vernacular - a rebuttable presumption. That is, I leave open the possibility that a leader in the Church may, in the words of President Smith above, issue remarks which "do not square with the revelations." That he may say "something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works." That he may say "something that contradicts what is found in the standard works." We must leave that possibility open, because our leaders have told us that it is a possibility. So if a leader in the Church says something that I feel may be problematic, I feel obligated to test it. To think about it. To study it. To discuss it with those whom I find trustworthy. To weight it against the Standard Works. And most of all, to pray about it. Thanks, -Smac 3
Analytics Posted December 1, 2021 Posted December 1, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, smac97 said: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." Nothing in there about the "word of God" as a monolithic and categorical "genre" of "literature." The 8th Article of Faith implies that some writings constitute "the word of God" while others do not. That is a categorical difference. Whether those two categories are two different "genres" is semantics and irrelevant to my point. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Ah. I think I'm starting to see the problem. Your italicizing "myths" seems to suggest that you are using "myth" to mean fictional / ahistorical, correct? For its pejorative connotations? See, e.g., here: Yes, my use of the word "myth" is to be juxtaposed with a literal description of real-world events. But no, I don't do that for pejorative connotations. Myths can be beautiful, instructive and inspirational. But they aren't real-world history. There is nothing wrong with that. But since you are offended by the word myth, I'll use a different word. For the sake of clarity, I'll use the word "figurative" to describe any story that is an allegory, metaphor, parable, or what have you. This is in comparison to "literal" to describe stories that are attempting to accurately describe literal real-world things in a direct way. If Mormons believe that the stories of the flood and tower of babel are figurative, that's great. My point is simply that if you believe those things are figurative and not literal, it has implications for whether the characters and overarching story of the Book of Mormon are figurative or literal. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: I guess my point is simply this. Your statement that "Historically, Mormonism took a the Bible pretty-much at face value" is substantially inaccurate and misleading. I disagree. Donald W. Parry said in the Ensign, "We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets." I am saying nothing more nor less than what he said, for exactly the same reasons that he said it. The only difference between him and me is that I accept the science that claims these events aren't plausible while he accepts the testimonies of the multiple prophets who have taught otherwise. I realize that Mormons don't monolithically believe what Parry says they do. I'm just claiming that he is accurately representing traditional mainstream Mormon thought. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: For you, there is no room for principles, reasoned disagreement. It's your way or the highway. Are you sure you aren't projecting here? You are the one who isn't allowing me to disagree with you. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: That's too bad. This is addressed in the Saints Unscripted video: And here: And here: And here: And here: If you want to try to pigeon-hole the Tower of Babel into one single and exclusive "genre," have at it. You are only proving the point of the video. What? The point of the video is that different stories in the Bible have different genres. For example, they claim the genre of the parables in the New Testament are parables. Likewise, they claim the genre of the story of Jonah and the whale is "satirical parable." Saints Unscripted are the ones who claim that specific bible stories can be classified be genre, and that understanding the genre helps you understand the story and cope with belief. For example, if you find belief in a literal reading of Jonah in the whale offensive to your sense of intellectual integrity then you have an out by realizing that its genre is satirical parable and that it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. I agree, and am simply asking what you think the genre is of the story of the Tower of Babel. What is that story's genre? Your refusal to answer that question makes it clear that you don't understand their point. Or that you do understand mine. Edited December 1, 2021 by Analytics 1
Analytics Posted December 1, 2021 Posted December 1, 2021 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Are they, though? You think Ben Spackman is on the same "track" as you regarding the Bible, the Book of Mormon, etc.? Yes. Every step away from fundamentalism is a step towards me.
MrShorty Posted December 1, 2021 Posted December 1, 2021 2 hours ago, CV75 said: Can you explain why your being “in” or “out” of the Church rests on trusting the prophets enough, rather than, say, trusting God enough (however you personally understand Him and your relationship with Him to be)? I suppose one might also put the question as, “Do you trust God enough to be “out” of the Church?” I think I'm getting to the point of trusting that God could be leading me out of the Church. At present, I believe that He wants me to stay in the Church, but I also believe that could change. I'm willing to follow where He leads. If I could ask back to you and others, do you trust God enough to believe that He could lead me out of the Church?
MrShorty Posted December 1, 2021 Posted December 1, 2021 1 hour ago, smac97 said: My rule of thumb is to give a presumption of good faith to the Brethren. To give them the benefit of the doubt. To assume that what they are saying is in accordance with the Standard Works, and with the Spirit. Again, I think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time. This makes good sense to me, but I don't think it goes quite far enough. Maybe because you have only talked about it in generic terms. What does it actually look like when your presumption is not vindicated? And, perhaps the important question that @Analytics asks, for you, how does "made a mistake on xxx" not lead to "may also be mistaken about yyy"? This is the part, IMO, that is not adequately addressed. 2
smac97 Posted December 1, 2021 Author Posted December 1, 2021 12 minutes ago, Analytics said: The 8th Article of Faith implies that some writings constitute "the word of God" while others do not.That is a categorical difference. But not one that is useful for characterizing a published work as belonging to a particular "genre." 12 minutes ago, Analytics said: Whether those two categories are two different "genres" is semantics and irrelevant to my point. I disagree. I think your approach reflects the problems addressed in the Saints Unscripted video. 12 minutes ago, Analytics said: Yes, my use of the word "myth" is to be juxtaposed with a literal description of real-world events. But no, I don't do that for pejorative connotations. Sure comes across that way. 12 minutes ago, Analytics said: Myths can be beautiful, instructive and inspirational. But they aren't real-world history. There's the problem. You presuppose that which has not been, and really cannot be, demonstrated. 12 minutes ago, Analytics said: There is nothing wrong with that. But since you are offended by the word myth, I'll use a different word. For the sake of clarity, I'll use the word "figurative" to describe any story that is an allegory, metaphor, parable, or what have you. I'm not really offended by the word. Your usage came across as pejorative, and I took it that way. 12 minutes ago, Analytics said: This is in comparison to "literal" to describe stories that are attempting to accurately describe literal real-world things in a direct way. The problem, though, is that much of the Standard Works are taken up with attempts to "describe literal real-world things in a direct way." 12 minutes ago, Analytics said: If Mormons believe that the stories of the flood and tower of babel are figurative, that's great. Your fundamentalism is leaking through. Scriptural narratives are often not an only-one-or-the-other kind of descriptions of things. 12 minutes ago, Analytics said: My point is simply that if you believe those things are figurative and not literal, I'm inclined to think that the substance of the stories are historical, with much of the narrative and subsequent characterizations coming later as figurative embellishments. By way of example, consider this famous painting of Washington crossing the Delaware River: Did Washington cross the Delaware? Yes, that seems to be well-established "fact." Did he do so in a boat? Yes. Were the waters icy? Apparently so. However, did Washington stand in the boat during the crossing? Were there exactly 11 other passengers in the boat with Washington? Were there exactly four oarsmen? More? Less? Was the ice in the river really that iceberg-like? What about the size of the boat? See here: Quote 4. Washington’s force used a collection of cargo boats and ferries to transport his men across the Delaware. Thanks to the foresight of General Washington and the actions of the New Jersey militia, the American forces had brought all available watercraft on the Delaware to the southern bank, thus denying the British the use of these crafts, while making them available for an American recrossing. Much of Washington’s force crossed the river in shallow draft Durham boats – strongly built cargo vessels, most between 40 and 60 feet in length, designed to move iron ore and bulk goods down the river to markets in and around Philadelphia. These stout craft with their high side walls were robust enough to survive the ice-choked Delaware. Heavy artillery pieces and horses were transported on large flat-bottomed ferries and other watercraft more suited to carrying that type of difficult cargo. It shouldn’t be surprising that most of Washington’s soldiers stood during the crossing since the bottoms of Durham boats were neither comfortable nor dry. Durham Boats being used during a recreation of the Delaware River crossing (Luke Jones Flickr CC) Why isn't there snow or rain depicted? See here: Quote 6. The crossing was made worse by the arrival of a strong storm that brought freezing rain, snow, and terrifying winds. By the time that most of the soldiers had reached the launching point for the boats, the drizzle had turned into a driving rain. And by 11 o’clock that evening, while the boats were crossing the river, a howling nor’easter made the miserable crossing even worse. One soldier recorded that “it blew a perfect hurricane” as snow and sleet lashed Washington’s army. What about the width of the river? See here: Quote 9. The Delaware River is less than 300 yards wide at the point where the army crossed. Despite how the Delaware River is commonly portrayed in works of art, the site where General Washington and his army crossed was rather narrow. Durham boats and flat ferries were used to cross. They were probably fixed to a wire strung across the river. Was there a wire strung across the river or not? If so, why is it not depicted? What about the flag? See here: Quote Historical inaccuracies The flag depicted is an early version of the flag of the United States (the "Stars and Stripes"), the design of which did not exist at the time of Washington's crossing. The flag's design was first specified in the June 14, 1777, Flag Resolution of the Second Continental Congress, and flew for the first time on September 3, 1777—[citation needed] well after Washington's crossing in 1776. A more historically accurate flag would have been the Grand Union Flag, hoisted by Washington on January 1, 1776, at Somerville, Massachusetts, as the standard of the Continental Army and the first national flag. Washington's stance, obviously intended to depict him in a heroic fashion, would have been very hard to maintain in the stormy conditions of the crossing. Considering that he is standing in a rowboat, such a stance would have risked capsizing the boat.[6] However, historian David Hackett Fischer has argued that everyone would have been standing up to avoid the icy water in the bottom of the boat, while the actual Durham boats used were much larger having a flat bottom, higher sides, a broad beam (width) of some eight feet and a draft of 24–30 inches deep.[7] Wow. Questions all over the place. And because of these questions, by your reckoning we can and ought to include that Washington never crossed the Delaware. Right? 12 minutes ago, Analytics said: it has implications for whether the characters and overarching story of the Book of Mormon are figurative or literal. Sure. The same can be said for much of ancient history and many ancient historical figures. My point is that few of these things can be definitively established, so your repeated insistance that you are the arbiter of what is "fact" and what is not, and that these facts are to be "realize{d}" and "accept{ed}" or else we are stupid / ignorant / dishonest ("mental gymnastics," as you so pejoratively called it). 12 minutes ago, Analytics said: Quote For you, there is no room for principles, reasoned disagreement. It's your way or the highway. Are you sure you aren't projecting here? Quite. I have not disparaged your integrity or intelligence because you have a different opinion on these things. I have not unilaterally declared my conclusions and opinions to be "fact." Do a search for how many times I have stated, on this board, across dozens of threads, that I believe that "reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things." 12 minutes ago, Analytics said: You are the one who isn't allowing me to disagree with you. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. For the umpteenth time, reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things. What I disagree with is your insults and false characterizations because we have opinions that differ from yours. 12 minutes ago, Analytics said: What? The point of the video is that different stories in the Bible have different genres. For example, they claim the genre of the parables in the New Testament are parables. Likewise, they claim the genre of the story of Jonah and the whale is "satirical parable." Saints Unscripted are the ones who claim that specific bible stories can be classified be genre. But you seem to be insisting on an either/or dichotomy. You are, as you put it, "us{ing} of the word 'myth' is to be juxtaposed with a literal description of real-world events." Juxtaposed. By your reasoning, Washington never crossed the Delaware because the German painter got the flag wrong. You are juxtaposing the the Tower of Babel as being "figurative" and, therefore, "not literal." Only one or other other. You then point to flaws or gaps in our understanding of the event, which in your view justifies rejecting that these events happened at all. That they are "myth" and not "real-world events." Either the Flood was, as you put it, "a literal, historical, global event," or else it never happened at all. And the story can only be construed in one way, as falling within one genre. 12 minutes ago, Analytics said: I agree, and am simply asking what you think the genre is of the story of the Tower of Babel. What is that story's genre? Your refusal to answer that question makes it clear that you don't understand their point. Or that you do understand mine. I did answer it. At some length, even. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted December 1, 2021 Author Posted December 1, 2021 1 hour ago, Analytics said: Quote Are they, though? You think Ben Spackman is on the same "track" as you regarding the Bible, the Book of Mormon, etc.? Yes. Every step away from fundamentalism is a step towards me. "Towards me." Oh. Thanks, -Smac
CV75 Posted December 1, 2021 Posted December 1, 2021 33 minutes ago, MrShorty said: I think I'm getting to the point of trusting that God could be leading me out of the Church. At present, I believe that He wants me to stay in the Church, but I also believe that could change. I'm willing to follow where He leads. If I could ask back to you and others, do you trust God enough to believe that He could lead me out of the Church? I tried not to ask a leading question by putting it as, “Do you trust God enough to be “out” of the Church?”, though in retrospect it appears more like a trick question. If I were to answer it for myself, I would have to say, "I trust God enough to stay in the Church, but not out of it." To answer the question as you put it, I would need to presume that you have concluded that He could lead you out of the Church for your benefit, and I would have to say, "I do not share your conclusion, so I do not trust God, on your terms, enough to believe that He could lead you out of the Church." If I were to answer that question for myself, I would have to say, "I do not believe God could lead me out of the Church for my benefit, so I do not trust* Him enough to believe that He could (or would)." *anti-trust? By "out of the Church" I mean to disavow the restoration of the keys, the related ordinances, covenants and doctrines. I think when people need to take a break and reevaluate, God is still going walk and strive with them, but He is not driving the pressures that cause them to take a break, nor lead or drive them "out of the Church." 1
smac97 Posted December 2, 2021 Author Posted December 2, 2021 25 minutes ago, MrShorty said: This makes good sense to me, but I don't think it goes quite far enough. Maybe because you have only talked about it in generic terms. What does it actually look like when your presumption is not vindicated? I generally follow the counsel given by then-Elder Oaks in 1987 in this article. When I was a missionary we had a General Authority come visit. He made some remarks to the assembled missionaries that were . . . unfortunate. In that instance, my presumption was not vindicated. So, per Elder Oaks' advice, I "overlook{ed} the difference" I had with him. I forgave him. The second option, again per Elder Oaks, would have been to "reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference." As it happens, this was unnecessary. The GA made some unfortunate remarks, but did not do or fail to do somethign that necessarily had ensuing consequences. My forgiving him resolved the issue. The third "Oaks" option would have been to "take up our differences privately with the leader involved." Again, this became unnecessary. Our mission president addressed the issue with the GA. The fourth "Oaks" option would have been to "to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression." In retrospect, I was not really situated to do this. I was a missionary in Taiwan at the time. I suppose I could have written to Salt Lake. The fifth "Oaks" option would have been to "pray for the resolution of the problem," to "pray for the leader whom we think to be in error, asking the Lord to correct the circumstance if it needs correction" and "{a}t the same time, we should pray for ourselves, asking the Lord to correct us if we are in error." In addition to these, I could also have declined to give a sustaining vote to this GA, and to explain to my ecclesiastical leader the reasons for such a decision. I'm a big fan of the Church's teachings regarding stewardship and councils. In the main, most of the "controversial" stuff the Brethren have to grapple with is simply not within my stewardship. And I trust that they are attempting to work together in councils when addressing those things. 25 minutes ago, MrShorty said: And, perhaps the important question that @Analytics asks, for you, how does "made a mistake on xxx" not lead to "may also be mistaken about yyy"? This is the part, IMO, that is not adequately addressed. There are very few moral issues about which the Brethren take a "Because-We-Say-So" approach. There is evidence. There is reasoning. There are binding authorities (statutes, etc.) precedent (case law). I litigate before judges on a regular basis. These judges do not operate in a vacuum. In the main, their job is to ascertain the facts to the best of their ability, and then meaningfully and fairly apply the law to those facts. They have considerable, but not unfettered, discretionary authority. Sometimes judges use that discretionary authority in ways that I don't like, or that I think are unfair. And sometimes judges err in ascertaining the facts and/or applying the substantive or procedural law. When that happens, I have options. I can file a motion. I can seek appellate review. Overwhelmingly, though, I just lump it. There is simply no way a judge is going to do his job in a way that makes everyone happy. Corruption or incompetence can be addressed by the state. In the end, I can have assurances that the judge is doing his job right by evaluating the evidence, the reasoning, the authorities/precedent (scriptures and such). Similar precepts help with looking at the Brethren. They don't operate in a vacuum. They counsel together and make decisions. Most of the time their decisions are sound and good, and go by unnoticed and unheralded. Sadly, in this era of "Outrage Culture," any decision can be the basis for someone publicly ranting and speaking against them. Most of the time these screeds are unwarranted and unfair. Sometimes the point of criticism is valid, but the means of voicing the criticism are usually inappropriate. My lodestar here in Mormon 9:31: Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been. Thanks, -Smac
Analytics Posted December 2, 2021 Posted December 2, 2021 13 hours ago, smac97 said: But not one that is useful for characterizing a published work as belonging to a particular "genre." I disagree. I think your approach reflects the problems addressed in the Saints Unscripted video. To be clear, categorizing literature into the groups "word of God" and "not word of God" is Joseph Smith's approach, not mine. But I do agree with you that feeling obligated to take the scriptures too literally is the problem addressed by that video. I'm glad we can agree on that. 13 hours ago, smac97 said: There's the problem. You presuppose that which has not been, and really cannot be, demonstrated. I'm not presupposing anything. I'm simply acknowledging what mainstream scholarship says about things. 13 hours ago, smac97 said: I'm inclined to think that the substance of the stories are historical, with much of the narrative and subsequent characterizations coming later as figurative embellishments. By way of example, consider this famous painting of Washington crossing the Delaware River: Did Washington cross the Delaware? Yes, that seems to be well-established "fact." For the sake of clarity, can reasonable minds disagree about whether George Washington crossed the Delaware? Can reasonable minds disagree about whether George Washington even existed? 13 hours ago, smac97 said: Wow. Questions all over the place. And because of these questions, by your reckoning we can and ought to include that Washington never crossed the Delaware. No, this has absolutely nothing to do with my reckoning. The difference between the George Washington crossing the Delaware story and the Tower of Babel story is that George Washington really did cross the Delaware. In contrast, the Tower of Babel story is a myth (see the following link Tower of Babel - Wikipedia). My approach is that within the constraints of my limited time and ability to research such things, I try to figure out what mainstream scholars believe and why, and then establish my credences according to how well they make their case. That's it. 13 hours ago, smac97 said: My point is that few of these things can be definitively established, so your repeated insistance that you are the arbiter of what is "fact" and what is not, and that these facts are to be "realize{d}" and "accept{ed}" or else we are stupid / ignorant / dishonest ("mental gymnastics," as you so pejoratively called it). "Mental gymnastics" doesn't imply stupidity, ignorance, or dishonesty. It implies intelligence, creativity, study, faithfulness, and a desire to reconcile religious belief with real-world evidence. 13 hours ago, smac97 said: Do a search for how many times I have stated, on this board, across dozens of threads, that I believe that "reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things." I know you say this all the time, and I find it an unimpressive rhetorical device. It makes you come across as a postmodern obscurantist. How does the cliche go? If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, disparage opposing counsel for believing his own arguments, insist he isn't the sole arbitrator of truth, and argue that reasonable minds can disagree. 13 hours ago, smac97 said: What I disagree with is your insults and false characterizations because we have opinions that differ from yours. Who is this "we" you are referring to? 13 hours ago, smac97 said: But you seem to be insisting on an either/or dichotomy. You are, as you put it, "us{ing} of the word 'myth' is to be juxtaposed with a literal description of real-world events." Juxtaposed. By your reasoning, Washington never crossed the Delaware because the German painter got the flag wrong. You are juxtaposing the the Tower of Babel as being "figurative" and, therefore, "not literal." Only one or other other. You then point to flaws or gaps in our understanding of the event, which in your view justifies rejecting that these events happened at all. That they are "myth" and not "real-world events." This line of reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with what I've said, nothing to do with what I've ever thought, and and nothing to do with my point on this thread. In logic, the phrase "X or Y" means X is true or Y is true or X and Y are both true." I juxtaposed "myth" with "literal real-world events" to clarify my definition of the words, not to insist that a myth couldn't have a kernel of historical truth. In any event, this all dodges my actual point. My point is simply that if a believer decides to deal with some of the unbelievable stories in the Bible by classifying them as a genre under the broad category of figurative, it could prove problematic because this has implications about other parts of the belief system. Apparently, you think the story of the Tower of Babel is based on a true story, but may have a few of the details wrong. That's fine. You be you. My point is that if you studied the issue in more detail and understood why "Biblical scholars see the Book of Genesis as mythological and not as a historical account of events." (Tower of Babel - Wikipedia), then you might be tempted to classify the story as figurative in order to relieve some of the weight on your shelf. Doing so is fine, but it has broader implications for your belief system.
Navidad Posted December 2, 2021 Posted December 2, 2021 (edited) I am a Biblical literalist who, as most of you know am happily an Evangelical as well. When I read some of the posts in this thread I think some do not understand the concept of Biblical literalism in its simplest meaning. Biblical literalism opens up the world of Biblical interpretation to me. I think the teeny tiny little word "as" is so important and missing in this conversation. As a literalist, I interpret the Bible as literally as the context allows. I don't believe the heart has a door at which Christ knocks. I don't believe Christ is a plant - a vine. I don't know if Jonah's story is a parable, allegory. or a historical fact. I do believe God can intervene supra-naturally in nature. I believe he rarely does so, but certainly can. I believe that a man named Noah existed, the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish shared belief in his existence seems evident and literal. I believe there was a great flood that Noah somehow escaped. I do not believe it extended beyond what we know as the Assyrian area, focusing on extreme southeast Turkey - the whole world of that day, especially if you look south from the heights of Mt. Cudi. My Biblical literalist position allows me to take that position. It does not force me into an unthinking box. I am not a Fundamentalist because I think that that genre can fail to demonstrate the love of Christ and can wear that failure as a badge of orthodoxy. As a literalist I believe many natural events have been mistakenly interpreted as supernatural. Please remember, the fringe of any movement is not the norm. Take care everyone. Edited December 2, 2021 by Navidad 2
smac97 Posted December 2, 2021 Author Posted December 2, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, Analytics said: To be clear, categorizing literature into the groups "word of God" and "not word of God" is Joseph Smith's approach, not mine. But I do agree with you that feeling obligated to take the scriptures too literally is the problem addressed by that video. I'm glad we can agree on that. I'm glad to hear it. 4 hours ago, Analytics said: I'm not presupposing anything. You are. Big time. 4 hours ago, Analytics said: I'm simply acknowledging what mainstream scholarship says about things. You are declaring disputed issues to be "facts." You are presupposing a particular perspective on these disputed issues to be 'fact." 4 hours ago, Analytics said: For the sake of clarity, can reasonable minds disagree about whether George Washington crossed the Delaware? By your reasoning, yes. Otherwise, no. 4 hours ago, Analytics said: Can reasonable minds disagree about whether George Washington even existed? By your reasoning, yes. Otherwise, no. 4 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote Wow. Questions all over the place. And because of these questions, by your reckoning we can and ought to include that Washington never crossed the Delaware. No, this has absolutely nothing to do with my reckoning. It has a lot to do with your reckoning. 4 hours ago, Analytics said: The difference between the George Washington crossing the Delaware story and the Tower of Babel story is that George Washington really did cross the Delaware. In contrast, the Tower of Babel story is a myth (see the following link Tower of Babel - Wikipedia). You are only proving my point. You are presupposing that which has yet to be demonstrated (that the Tower of Babel never happened/existed). You are declaring this as "fact." You are denigrating those who disagree with you about this as ignorant / dishonest / stupid. You are pointing to apparent flaws and gaps in our understanding of a disputed event from thousands of years ago to summarily declare that those disputes somehow definitively establish, as "fact," that the event never happened at all. This is your reasoning, which applied to a more recent event (such as one that happened in New Jersey in 1776) would require us to deny that Washington crossed the Delaware. 4 hours ago, Analytics said: My approach is that within the constraints of my limited time and ability to research such things, I try to figure out what mainstream scholars believe and why, and then establish my credences according to how well they make their case. That's it. No, that's not it. I sure would be interested in seeing "mainstream scholars" establish as "fact" the ahistoricity of the Tower of Babel narrative from thousands of years ago. I think you are so infatuated with scientism that you end up getting reckless with it. I'm reminded of our discussion back in March, when you were trumpeting Sean Carroll's book and declaring that his theory is "the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science," that it is "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla," and that it "proves that spirits and revelation don't exist." You also asserted that it is "silly" to state that "science, in its present form, can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, or the existence of spirits." A memorable excerpt: Quote Quote In the words of Sean Carroll: There’s nothing in the practice of science that excludes the supernatural from the start. Science tries to find the best explanations for what we observe, and if the best explanation is a non-natural one, that’s the one science would lead us to. We can easily imagine situations in which the best explanation scientists could find would reach beyond the natural world. The Second Coming could occur; Jesus could return to Earth, the dead could be resurrected, and judgment could be passed. It would be a pretty dense set of scientists indeed who, faced with the evidence of their senses in such a situation, would stubbornly insist on considering only natural explanations. The relationship between science and naturalism is not that science presumes naturalism; it’s that science has provisionally concluded that naturalism is the best picture of the world we have available. Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 134). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. Sheesh. Even Carroll doesn't go so far as you do. He proposes that "science has provisionally concluded" some things. "Provisionally," as I hope you understand, means "subject to further confirmation; for the time being." Synonyms for it include "temporarily" and "on certain conditions." See also "subject to confirmation," "as a fill-in," "short-term," "for the present," "for now," and "tentatively." But on this thread you have blown way past "provisionally" and are saying that Caroll's theory is "the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science," that it is "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla," and that it "proves that spirits and revelation don't exist." Don't you see what you are doing here? ... Quote I've been talking about what quantum physics has to say about the likelihood that spirits are real. "Likelihood?" You're well beyond "likelihood." You have declared that Carroll's position (which even he characterizes as "provisional") is "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla," and that it "proves that spirits and revelation don't exist." So which is it? Have you definitively "proven" the that "spirits and revelation don't exist?" Or are you just talking about it having a low (but nonzero) "likelihood" of existing? You're doing the same thing in this thread. You are going well beyond what scholarship is capable of proving or disproving. 4 hours ago, Analytics said: "Mental gymnastics" doesn't imply stupidity, ignorance, or dishonesty. It implies intelligence, creativity, study, faithfulness, and a desire to reconcile religious belief with real-world evidence. Malarky. https://www.yourdictionary.com/mental-gymnastics Quote Inventive, complex arguments used to justify unjustifiable decisions, or situations. People often perform mental gymnastics in order to blame anyone but themselves. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mental_gymnastics Quote mental gymnastics pl (plural only) 1. Difficult and complex logical thought processes, especially when performed effortlessly. To cope with these mental gymnastics we apply various ways of simplifying and reducing the information. 2. (derogatory) Inventive, complex arguments used to justify what is otherwise unjustifiable. People often perform mental gymnastics in order to blame anyone but themselves. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mental gymnastics Quote a slang term for the mental ability that can be very effective in dealing with cognitive dissonance A Bible researcher can do mental gymnastics to convince himself the timbers he found in a snowy Russian mountain were remains of Noah's Ark. https://www.definitions.net/definition/mental+gymnastics Quote mental gymnasticsnoun Inventive, complex arguments used to justify unjustifiable decisions, or situations. https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/mental-gymnastics Quote self justification There’s a lot of mental gymnastics you have to go through in order to justify what you’re doing. It's a slang term, not a scientific or clinical or scholarly one. And it is used almost entirely for its pejorative meaning. 4 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote Do a search for how many times I have stated, on this board, across dozens of threads, that I believe that "reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things." I know you say this all the time, and I find it an unimpressive rhetorical device. It's a philosophical statement, one that contrasts quite well with your various unilateral declarations of your opinion/perspective being "fact." 4 hours ago, Analytics said: It makes you come across as a postmodern obscurantist. I don't think so. I've been litigating disputed issues in court for many years now. Allowing, as I do, for the possibility of reasonable minds disagreeing about important things, is a substantial check on me, a reminder that my perspective is not the only one out there. In contrast, there are those who come to this board and present their perspective as a "fact" to be "realize{d}" and "accept{ed}." 4 hours ago, Analytics said: Who is this "we" you are referring to? The folks who have opinions that differ from yours. 4 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote But you seem to be insisting on an either/or dichotomy. You are, as you put it, "us{ing} of the word 'myth' is to be juxtaposed with a literal description of real-world events." Juxtaposed. By your reasoning, Washington never crossed the Delaware because the German painter got the flag wrong. You are juxtaposing the the Tower of Babel as being "figurative" and, therefore, "not literal." Only one or other other. You then point to flaws or gaps in our understanding of the event, which in your view justifies rejecting that these events happened at all. That they are "myth" and not "real-world events." This line of reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with what I've said, nothing to do with what I've ever thought, and and nothing to do with my point on this thread. In logic, the phrase "X or Y" means X is true or Y is true or X and Y are both true." I juxtaposed "myth" with "literal real-world events" to clarify my definition of the words, not to insist that a myth couldn't have a kernel of historical truth. Wow. I previously asked: Quote Quote Believing that the Bible is a compilation, interpretation, and partial harmonization of even more ancient myths... I think I'm starting to see the problem. Your italicizing "myths" seems to suggest that you are using "myth" to mean fictional / ahistorical, correct? For its pejorative connotations? ... In other words, you seem to be presupposing that which has yet to be demonstrated, and that in most instances can never be demonstrated. You then proceed to ridicule those who do not share your presupposition. You responded: Quote Yes, my use of the word "myth" is to be juxtaposed with a literal description of real-world events. So now you are saying that the Tower of Babel narrative can have elements of historical truth in it, that it could have been a "real-world event," despite the encroachment of inaccuracies borne of the passage of time, translation and trasmission issues, and so on. Is that a fair statement of your position? If so, I quite agree with it. 4 hours ago, Analytics said: In any event, this all dodges my actual point. My point is simply that if a believer decides to deal with some of the unbelievable stories in the Bible by classifying them as a genre under the broad category of figurative, it could prove problematic because this has implications about other parts of the belief system. Apparently, you think the story of the Tower of Babel is based on a true story, but may have a few of the details wrong. That's fine. You be you. Well, here we go again. Do you allow for this position or not? Can reasonable minds disagree about whether the "the Tower of Babel is based on a true story?" 4 hours ago, Analytics said: My point is that if you studied the issue in more detail and understood why "Biblical scholars see the Book of Genesis as mythological and not as a historical account of events." (Tower of Babel - Wikipedia), then you might be tempted to classify the story as figurative in order to relieve some of the weight on your shelf. Doing so is fine, but it has broader implications for your belief system. Oi. Here we go again with you and your infatuation with academia and scientism. I'm reminded of our discussion in March. You said: Quote But things like spirits, revelation, and priesthood power are within the purview of science because they make concrete claims about the real world. As I've shown on this thread, the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science, the theory that is as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla, proves that spirits and revelation don't exist. ... I don't expect you to agree with me. But from my seat, science is continuously gaining further light and knowledge, and all branches of science are pointing to the same conclusion. I responded: Quote That you speak of "science" in monolithic and sentient terms is, frankly, one of the biggest indicators of you having fallen into scientism and presentism. "Science" is not a person. It cannot speak. It cannot make statements of fact. It is a compendium of information and theory acquired to date. It is studied and explored and explained by many very intelligent people, many of whom disagree with each other in ways large and small. You have come here and presume to declare what "science" says, what "science" has concluded, and so on. There are (1) facts, (2) limited and not-perfectly-understood data giving us insights as to those facts, and (3) individualized perspectives and opinions and conclusions about (1) that are predicated on (2). But you are insisting that you have transcended the entirety of the human endeavor, that you have collapsed and circumscribed (1), (2) and (3) into a "theory that is as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla," and that this theory "proves that spirits and revelation don't exist." I understand the consensus of many biblical scholars about Genesis. You are saying that this consensus is that " the Book of Genesis as mythological and not as a historical account of events," (which comes across as more of a "one and not the other" kind of thing) while elsewhere conceding that the Biblical narratives, such as the story of the Tower of Babel, can be based on "a kernel of historical truth." This latter point jibes quite well with what the leaders of the Church have said: Quote "At face value" can mean all sorts of things. Genesis is overflowing with poetic imagery, but also describes actual events, persons, etc. Also, from nearly the outset of the Church there have been leaders of the Church who have been quite comfortable with professing faith in the scriptures while also hewing to the best scientific knowledge of the day. Talmage and Widtsoe come most readily to mind. See, e.g., here: Quote Elders James E. Talmage and John A. Widtsoe, two LDS apostles, knew a thing or two about science. Before they were both ordained as special witnesses in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Elder Widtsoe was a chemist and Elder Talmage was a geologist. Both men were considered scholars in their respective fields. Both served terms as president of the University of Utah. Both men also demonstrated it was possible to balance academic and scientific pursuits while progressing spiritually. “The church supports and welcomes the growth of science. … The religion of the Latter-day Saints is not hostile to any truth, nor to scientific search for truth,” Elder Widtsoe said in his 1943 book “Evidences and Reconciliations.” Elder Widtsoe said science and religion both seek truth. “That they have occupied different fields of truth is a mere detail. The gospel accepts and embraces all truth; science is slowly expanding her arms, and reaching into the invisible domain, in search of truth. The two are meeting daily,” Elder Widtsoe wrote in his book "In Search of Truth: Comments on the Gospel and Modern Thought." “Religion has an equal right to try science. Either method, properly applied, leads to the same result: Truth is truth.” Elder Talmage was a professor of chemistry and geology at Brigham Young Academy from 1888 to 1893 and was president of the University of Utah from 1894 to 1897. In 1907, he resigned as a professor of geology at Utah to pursue a private practice as a consulting mining geologist. Given his interest in geology, one gospel topic that Elder Talmage studied extensively was the Creation as found in Genesis. He defended the scriptural account in his 1931 address titled “The Earth and Man.” “Discrepancies that trouble us now will diminish as our knowledge of pertinent facts is extended. The creator has made a record in the rocks for man to decipher; but He has also spoken directly regarding the main stages of progress by which the earth has been brought to be what it is,” wrote Elder Talmage, also an accomplished author and educator. ... As Elder Talmage put it: “The opening chapters of Genesis … were never intended as a textbook of geology, archeology, earth-science or man-science. Holy scripture will endure, while the conceptions of men change with new discoveries.” ... See also this 1986 Ensign article by Gerald N. Lund. It now is starting to sound like you and I agree in the main, but disagree in some of the particulars. The Tower of Babel and other biblical events may reflect actual historical events (they may "have a kernel of historical truth"), while also being presented via poetic prose (or some other form than a just-the-facts-ma'am style we might sometimes prefer), and while also being overgrown with some flawed perceptions, gaps, assumptions, etc. arising from the passage of time, translation and transmission issues, cultural filters, etc. Would you agree with that? Thanks, -Smac Edited December 2, 2021 by smac97 1
Islander Posted December 3, 2021 Posted December 3, 2021 On 12/1/2021 at 6:04 AM, Olmec Donald said: Is what you describe the only correct application of scripture? Seems to me that would limit scripture's usefulness to the scholarly few who know the specific context of a given passage. Here's an alternative way to apply scripture. From 1 Nephi chapter 19, verses 23 and 24: "I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning... liken [the scriptures] unto yourselves..." Nothing wrong with studying the historical background of a scripture, and I agree that knowing the context can deepen our understanding, but it seems to me one of the advantages of reading the scriptures is that doing so invites the Holy Spirit to speak to us through them even if we do not know the context. By way of example, I doubt fourteen-year-old Joseph Smith was a New Testament scholar when he read James 1:5. I guess you did not read the final line of my post. There is a significant different between understanding what the scripture means and how it could possible mirror a situation or circumstance in our lives. "...liken all scriptures unto us" means, place yourself there in the setting where the passage took place. "Listen to it" as if you were standing before The Savior or Paul when they preached. Use the scripture as a lens through which we can see our life and circumstances. Apply the counsel, commandment or wisdom dispensed. But reading and understanding the actual meaning of the passage is a totally different skill.
Calm Posted December 3, 2021 Posted December 3, 2021 15 minutes ago, Islander said: But reading and understanding the actual meaning of the passage is a totally different skill. And how do you know when you are actually skilled and not just making it up? 1
Islander Posted December 3, 2021 Posted December 3, 2021 On 12/1/2021 at 10:49 AM, Calm said: But understanding what the Lord wants us to know is interpretation itself. The Spirit of Prophecy doesn’t turn us into puppets that can only say certain words or ideas or fixes understanding at the beginning never to change. Joseph Smith did not teach the same identical ideas about a scripture verse each time he spoke of them. In Mosiah 12:25-26 Abinidi chastises the "priests" for teaching incorrect doctrine and misinterpreting the word of the Lord: ""And now Abinadi said unto them: Are you priests, and pretend to teach this people, and to understand the spirit of prophesying, and yet desire to know of me what these things mean? I say unto you, wo be unto you for perverting the ways of the Lord! For if ye understand these things ye have not taught them; therefore, ye have perverted the ways of the Lord." Why? Because, like i said, The Lord intended the revelation (scripture) to mean exactly what He needed them, (to whom the message was given) something very specific. The scriptures are for our benefit but they were not given/delivered to us (today in the 21st century). They were verbally delivered to a specific people, at a specific time for a specific purpose. We can draw counsel, wisdom, comfort and encouragement as we look through the lens of scripture. but they are NOT open to interpretation. That is why there are thousands of denominations and an equal number of heresies all claiming a distinct interpretation.
Islander Posted December 3, 2021 Posted December 3, 2021 20 minutes ago, Calm said: And how do you know when you are actually skilled and not just making it up? There are a myriad of tools available for the study of scripture. There are several modern translations of the bible in several languages and historical texts that help us shed light into the context of the scriptures. There are interlinear dictionaries that translate word for word from Hebrew or Greek the complete bible. The bible is the most scrutinized text in history. All it takes is time. There are no new truths revealed out of the NT. Archeologists and historians may uncover a long stored document that sheds light into the social, political and economic context of ancient times but that is it. In terms of the modern revelation, other than the 19th century English and the use of words that have a slightly different meaning today, it is as plain as daylight. Application is a different item and we can talk about it on a different post.
Islander Posted December 3, 2021 Posted December 3, 2021 37 minutes ago, Calm said: And how do you know when you are actually skilled and not just making it up? It is not that hard. The Savior said: "But behold I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and cpray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father who is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise aon the evil and on the good. 3 Ne 12:44-45 It is quite transparent. Love even those you do not like and that hurt you. Pray for them, help them, sacrifice for them. Why? Because if you claim to be of the family of God you must demonstrate qualities and attributes that would evidence such. That is what God does, so imitate Him. And in most of the scriptures you can easily discern what it means. Other passages require you to know and understand more about the context. We are ALL partakers of the same Spirit. You and I have the ability to read the scriptures and receive counsel, strength, encouragement, wisdom and truth, just as any GA in the church. They do not have access to "special revelation" contained in scripture that we are not privy to for some reason.
Recommended Posts