Question of the day!

[Tacenda]

On 2/15/2022 at 8:22 PM, Tacenda said:

Can this be my question of the day?

Is anyone giving a talk this Sunday on the lesson about Lot's wife?

I would love to witness a talk with this article included. 

"Tell Me Her Name".

https://www.the-exponent.com/tell-me-her-name/?fbclid=IwAR311IA2Vsy14yWLwUryjcOe3VbpSs3z1kXCESXORRMW2BnGAUpX0JwO-Fk

Bumping this up, I can't start topics, does anyone care to read this blessed response to this week's CFM lesson on Lot and his wife that turned into a pillar of salt? I think someone should give this along with their talk this Sunday. Seriously! @bluebell@Calm @juliann and so many more women posters. Am I off my rocker for wanting this so much?

@Nemesis I'm sorry if I derailed this, I would love to put it where it wouldn't derail. Any suggestions? I just think it's such an important item.

Edited February 18, 2022 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

I give this historical fiction a C+

[bluebell]

Whoo Hoo, Tacenda got her own thread!  

I'm going to copy and paste the response that I put on the other thread, with a few additions:

 

I don't know what a church talk on how we know very very few (too few) women's names from the scriptures would even work?  What would we say?  This isn't fair?  It's not fair but it is what it is and there is no way to change it.  There are not many ways to humanize people who barely exist in the story without just making stuff up, especially if they only exist as a warning.

I don't know that making stuff up is the answer though.

I like the ways the writer of that article presented Lot's wife.  It could be completely wrong (there is no way to know) but it's nice to present her with good intentions.  It's hard to know if she ever actually existed, and I don't believe for a second that God would turn someone into a pillar of salt because she turned around to see if her daughters were coming, but it does humanize her to think of it that way.

Dan Peterson is the guest speaker for the Follow Him podcast that Hank Smith and John Bytheway are doing this week and he talks about how this area of the desert has many such pillars of salt and some of them are big enough to look like people.  

Here is what Dan says about it, and some of John's commentary too:

Dr. Daniel Peterson: 42:07--They're told not to look back. And there again, this story about Lot's wife is an odd one. But the idea of not looking back, we can take that as a metaphor very, very clearly and easily. Leave Babylon and don't look back. Leave Sodom and don't look back. Don't keep thinking, "Man, it would've been nice." Oh gee, I miss..." X, Y, and Z. No, just make a clean break. She looks back and is turned into a pillar of salt. Whatever that act means, I don't know. There are sort of salt pillars around that part of the dead sea, because it's a really salty lake and it's gone through various periods of expansion and contraction. It's in a deep contraction right now. And it's left pillars of dirty salt all around the area, and it stinks really badly. But I can imagine that that's what they're thinking of when they think of this passage.

John Bytheway: 43:03--We had a bus driver pull over and point and say, "There's Lot's wife right there." So, I think there's maybe a spot where there's a particular pillar they like to...

Dr. Daniel Peterson: 43:13--Yeah. Well, some of them are about the height of human beings. I mean, they almost look like people. You can see people in them.

John Bytheway: 43:22--It does sound like kind of a harsh punishment to become a geographic formation all of a sudden for just looking. I was so excited to ask Dr. Peterson this, because isn't there a hint in the Quran that she didn't just want to go back, but she actually went back?

Dr. Daniel Peterson: 43:39--Yeah, there is, yeah, that she went back and she's punished for that. Yeah, that's a Muslim tradition that it wasn't... It's not just a glance. We think that's too harsh. But if it's, "My heart's really there. I liked that place. I had a nice house. I had lots of good Genesis 18-23  stuff and I'd rather be there." Like Laman and Lemuel always saying, "Gee, wish we could be back in Jerusalem." They never really left in their hearts and look what happened to them.

(This is a transcript of the podcast so that's why there are time stamps included)

[teddyaware]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Whoo Hoo, Tacenda got her own thread!  

I'm going to copy and paste the response that I put on the other thread, with a few additions:

 

I don't know what a church talk on how we know very very few (too few) women's names from the scriptures would even work?  What would we say?  This isn't fair?  It's not fair but it is what it is and there is no way to change it.  There are not many ways to humanize people who barely exist in the story without just making stuff up, especially if they only exist as a warning.

I don't know that making stuff up is the answer though.

I like the ways the writer of that article presented Lot's wife.  It could be completely wrong (there is no way to know) but it's nice to present her with good intentions.  It's hard to know if she ever actually existed, and I don't believe for a second that God would turn someone into a pillar of salt because she turned around to see if her daughters were coming, but it does humanize her to think of it that way.

Dan Peterson is the guest speaker for the Follow Him podcast that Hank Smith and John Bytheway are doing this week and he talks about how this area of the desert has many such pillars of salt and some of them are big enough to look like people.  

Here is what Dan says about it, and some of John's commentary too:

Dr. Daniel Peterson: 42:07--They're told not to look back. And there again, this story about Lot's wife is an odd one. But the idea of not looking back, we can take that as a metaphor very, very clearly and easily. Leave Babylon and don't look back. Leave Sodom and don't look back. Don't keep thinking, "Man, it would've been nice." Oh gee, I miss..." X, Y, and Z. No, just make a clean break. She looks back and is turned into a pillar of salt. Whatever that act means, I don't know. There are sort of salt pillars around that part of the dead sea, because it's a really salty lake and it's gone through various periods of expansion and contraction. It's in a deep contraction right now. And it's left pillars of dirty salt all around the area, and it stinks really badly. But I can imagine that that's what they're thinking of when they think of this passage.

John Bytheway: 43:03--We had a bus driver pull over and point and say, "There's Lot's wife right there." So, I think there's maybe a spot where there's a particular pillar they like to...

Dr. Daniel Peterson: 43:13--Yeah. Well, some of them are about the height of human beings. I mean, they almost look like people. You can see people in them.

John Bytheway: 43:22--It does sound like kind of a harsh punishment to become a geographic formation all of a sudden for just looking. I was so excited to ask Dr. Peterson this, because isn't there a hint in the Quran that she didn't just want to go back, but she actually went back?

Dr. Daniel Peterson: 43:39--Yeah, there is, yeah, that she went back and she's punished for that. Yeah, that's a Muslim tradition that it wasn't... It's not just a glance. We think that's too harsh. But if it's, "My heart's really there. I liked that place. I had a nice house. I had lots of good Genesis 18-23  stuff and I'd rather be there." Like Laman and Lemuel always saying, "Gee, wish we could be back in Jerusalem." They never really left in their hearts and look what happened to them.

(This is a transcript of the podcast so that's why there are time stamps included)

It never ceases to amaze me how often educated members of the Church dismiss as obvious fantasy events that the Savior himself solemnly testified to as being real events. But hey, the Savior never went to college so maybe the answer lies in the fact that he’s just another gullible country bumpkin too?

28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

32 Remember Lot’s wife.

33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.

35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. (Luke 17)

I wonder how many educated Latter-Day Saints find the Saviors testimony that some men and women will unexpectedly be resurrected and instantly vanish from view to be just as far fetched as naively as believing that when Lot’s wife died her body was instantaneously mineralized? Which of these two events, recorded in scripture and testified to by the Savior as being real occurrences, is harder to believe? 

 

Edited February 19, 2022 by teddyaware

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

It never ceases to amaze me how often educated members of the Church dismiss as obvious fantasy events that the Savior himself solemnly testified to as being real events. But hey, the Savior never went to college so maybe the answer lies in the fact that he’s just another gullible country bumpkin too?

28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

32 Remember Lot’s wife.

33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.

35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. (Luke 17)

I wonder how many educated Latter-Day Saints find the Saviors testimony that some men and women will unexpectedly be resurrected and instantly vanish from view to be just as far fetched as naively as believing that when Lot’s wife died her body was instantaneously mineralized? Which of these two events, recorded in scripture and testified to by the Savior as being real occurrences, is harder to believe? 

 

I don’t think it’s a given that the Savior was testifying that these events actually happened (though they may have). Seems like He is reminding them of some stories from the OT that they were already familiar with.

Like how we might say “remember the prodigal son…” when teaching about repentance, for example.

Not sure why you think being snarky and self righteous about different scripture interpretations is the best way to emulate Christ. 

[Tacenda]

Wow, count me shocked/blessed to see this, it's probably not going to happen again. @Nemesis you made my day, week, year! 

I guess the article affected me because I believe the women's identities in the Bible are too few and their story behind their action.  I wish the church could include more women's thoughts and stories, historical women too, that lived polygamy, women who were dedicated enough to do that, the sacrifice it took, yet they're basically unknown. And other amazing LDS women and their stories, that our left out of the picture, pretty much.

The scripture of Lot's family, to me, I don't take as really happening, maybe in the Bible it is being used as a parable. I just wish, since @teddyaware said it came from the Lord, then I wish He had included her name, and her feelings etc. And the making of her into a pillar of salt for being the bad person compared to others like Lot not being the bad person is plain wrong, Lot isn't innocent when he lingers in the town too, and no wonder women are abused/disqualified by their husbands or society in general throughout history. When a man, or a non LDS man reads the Bible they get the idea that women are less than or to be blamed for stuff. I happen to believe it's men's insecurities that seep into the Bible. With Eve especially (which I don't believe, and think it's allegory). Thank heavens the LDS look upon her as doing the right thing, every other Christian doesn't, or do some of them? 

I took from the article that is the subject of this special topic, that women are nameless, their stories are very minimal, in the church and the scriptures in general. It's a man's world. Or at least it was hopefully.  

[Freedom]

The book of Genesis is a liturgical text, we need to understand its form and function. Rather than imposing modern sensitivities to the text, we are better served to try understand what function the pillar of salt served in the story, and what looking back served. The scriptures do not teach history, rather they teach His story. The story of Jehovahs covenant with his people. We can take issue with all of scripture if we forget the historical context from which it emerged. 

 

A good example is to perhaps view these images as figures of speech. If I where to call you an Einstein, you would understand this to mean that I think you are smart. If I where to say 'you are a regular Einstein' you would more likely interpret this to mean I was mocking you for stating the obvious. 1000 years from now, the reader would have no idea what I my true intention was. Was I accusing you of having messy hair? or perhaps that you are a stickler for legal patents? Maybe you do not wear socks. It could be that the only reference that remains of him in the distant future is an episode of the simpsons. 

In short, we can only guess what is meant by her turning to salt. But I doubt it meant that she literally turned to salt. If you stated that your legs turned to jello, everyone here would understand that you were using figurative and abstract language to express nervousness. 

Fast forward 4000 years and they find a story that states 'Tacenda looked back from behind him and she became a bowl of jello' just imagine the speculation that would swirl. 

[Tacenda]

15 hours ago, Freedom said:

The book of Genesis is a liturgical text, we need to understand its form and function. Rather than imposing modern sensitivities to the text, we are better served to try understand what function the pillar of salt served in the story, and what looking back served. The scriptures do not teach history, rather they teach His story. The story of Jehovahs covenant with his people. We can take issue with all of scripture if we forget the historical context from which it emerged. 

 

A good example is to perhaps view these images as figures of speech. If I where to call you an Einstein, you would understand this to mean that I think you are smart. If I where to say 'you are a regular Einstein' you would more likely interpret this to mean I was mocking you for stating the obvious. 1000 years from now, the reader would have no idea what I my true intention was. Was I accusing you of having messy hair? or perhaps that you are a stickler for legal patents? Maybe you do not wear socks. It could be that the only reference that remains of him in the distant future is an episode of the simpsons. 

In short, we can only guess what is meant by her turning to salt. But I doubt it meant that she literally turned to salt. If you stated that your legs turned to jello, everyone here would understand that you were using figurative and abstract language to express nervousness. 

Fast forward 4000 years and they find a story that states 'Tacenda looked back from behind him and she became a bowl of jello' just imagine the speculation that would swirl. 

Thanks for your thoughts Freedom! And that is a funny image at the end, haha, green jello at that!

[Bernard Gui]

Sister Lotta just after turning around. Lot kept this on his mantelpiece for years but later scattered it over some nice roasted mutton. (The date is B.C.E. of coarse)

 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Mrs. Lot (Lotta) just after turning around. The date is B.C.E. Lot kept this on his mantelpiece for years but later scattered it over some nice roasted mutton.

 

 

Very funny!! 🤣

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, Freedom said:

The book of Genesis is a liturgical text, we need to understand its form and function. Rather than imposing modern sensitivities to the text, we are better served to try understand what function the pillar of salt served in the story, and what looking back served. The scriptures do not teach history, rather they teach His story. The story of Jehovahs covenant with his people. We can take issue with all of scripture if we forget the historical context from which it emerged. 

 

A good example is to perhaps view these images as figures of speech. If I where to call you an Einstein, you would understand this to mean that I think you are smart. If I where to say 'you are a regular Einstein' you would more likely interpret this to mean I was mocking you for stating the obvious. 1000 years from now, the reader would have no idea what I my true intention was. Was I accusing you of having messy hair? or perhaps that you are a stickler for legal patents? Maybe you do not wear socks. It could be that the only reference that remains of him in the distant future is an episode of the simpsons. 

In short, we can only guess what is meant by her turning to salt. But I doubt it meant that she literally turned to salt. If you stated that your legs turned to jello, everyone here would understand that you were using figurative and abstract language to express nervousness. 

Fast forward 4000 years and they find a story that states 'Tacenda looked back from behind him and she became a bowl of jello' just imagine the speculation that would swirl. 

Exactly!!

A wonderful post from someone who actually gets it!

Seeing the FUNCTION of the story and the belief it teaches is what we need to see in all scriptural interpretation.

Does anyone care about the name of the prodigal son, or where the events happened?

Of course not!!

Edited February 20, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Exactly!!

A wonderful post from someone who actually gets it!

Seeing the FUNCTION of the story and the belief it teaches is what we need to see in all scriptural interpretation.

Does anyone care about the name of the prodigal son, or where the events happened?

Of course not!!

To the bold:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Bible#:~:text=Professor Karla Bombach says one,137 of them being women.

Karla Bombach says one study produced a total of 3000-3100 names, 2900 of which are men with 170 of the total being women. However, the possibility of duplication produced the recalculation of a total of 1700 distinct personal names in the Bible with 137 of them being women.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

To the bold:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Bible#:~:text=Professor Karla Bombach says one,137 of them being women.

Karla Bombach says one study produced a total of 3000-3100 names, 2900 of which are men with 170 of the total being women. However, the possibility of duplication produced the recalculation of a total of 1700 distinct personal names in the Bible with 137 of them being women.

Representation matters.

[ttribe]

On 2/18/2022 at 10:33 PM, bluebell said:

I don’t think it’s a given that the Savior was testifying that these events actually happened (though they may have). Seems like He is reminding them of some stories from the OT that they were already familiar with.

Like how we might say “remember the prodigal son…” when teaching about repentance, for example.

Not sure why you think being snarky and self righteous about different scripture interpretations is the best way to emulate Christ. 

Par for the course with that poster.

[Freedom]

On 2/18/2022 at 9:33 PM, bluebell said:

I don’t think it’s a given that the Savior was testifying that these events actually happened (though they may have). Seems like He is reminding them of some stories from the OT that they were already familiar with.

Like how we might say “remember the prodigal son…” when teaching about repentance, for example.

Not sure why you think being snarky and self righteous about different scripture interpretations is the best way to emulate Christ. 

although I accept that Lot and Noah and Adam were real people, I do not believe that the story's we have are true historical records. They are, in my opinion, allegories based on true stories, and we should read them as allegories or parables. We get caught up on 'do we take this literally?" What we should ask is 'is this concrete or abstract? The opposite if literal is fiction. It is not fiction, but it is not concrete either. James Bond is fictional, but concrete. The gun is a gun, and drink is just a drink - this is not deep symbolic literature. the story of Lots wife is abstract, it is poetry, it is well crafted literature that teaches gospel covenants. 

[Bernard Gui]

18 hours ago, Freedom said:

although I accept that Lot and Noah and Adam were real people, I do not believe that the story's we have are true historical records. They are, in my opinion, allegories based on true stories, and we should read them as allegories or parables. We get caught up on 'do we take this literally?" What we should ask is 'is this concrete or abstract? The opposite if literal is fiction. It is not fiction, but it is not concrete either. James Bond is fictional, but concrete. The gun is a gun, and drink is just a drink - this is not deep symbolic literature. the story of Lots wife is abstract, it is poetry, it is well crafted literature that teaches gospel covenants. 

Do you extend this view to the historical and spiritual events in the Book of Mormon?

[Freedom]

On 2/21/2022 at 6:37 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Do you extend this view to the historical and spiritual events in the Book of Mormon?

the book of Mormon is a different type of text, but to a degree yes, ancient writers did not have our modern concept of expository writing. They had no idea that they were writing down something that, millennias later, would be gleaned for historical references to create an accurate timeline of their civilization. If they were, Nephi would not have use chiasmas and parallelism. 

Genesis is a liturgical text, very different from the book of Kings for example. These events were likely written as part of their temple worship and were not used in their 3rd year history class at the university of Bethlehem. 

But take the example of Nephi killing Laban. There are too many clear references to King David for us to take this story as a factual and accurate moment by moment account of how that evening played out. He was establishing himself as king, and using references to David to justify this authority. The final battle with their perfect round numbers of 10,000 screams abstract literature. Laman and Nephi are to perfect in their opposing natures, too black and white - they are poetic constructs or moral archetypes. Nephi took aspects of Laban to create a persona in his book. Nephi was not teaching us about his brother Laban, he was teaching us about righteousness and wickedness, good and evil, obedience and disobedience. King Noah vs King Benjamin, the people of Limhi vs the people of Alma.  

Today we get up in arms when it is revealed that a general authority's stories from the war were either exaggerations or complete fabrications but this is modern criticisms. Back in the day, this is how they wrote. The facts did not matter so much as the principles being conveyed. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 2/22/2022 at 11:17 PM, Freedom said:

the book of Mormon is a different type of text, but to a degree yes, ancient writers did not have our modern concept of expository writing. They had no idea that they were writing down something that, millennias later, would be gleaned for historical references to create an accurate timeline of their civilization. If they were, Nephi would not have use chiasmas and parallelism. 

Genesis is a liturgical text, very different from the book of Kings for example. These events were likely written as part of their temple worship and were not used in their 3rd year history class at the university of Bethlehem. 

But take the example of Nephi killing Laban. There are too many clear references to King David for us to take this story as a factual and accurate moment by moment account of how that evening played out. He was establishing himself as king, and using references to David to justify this authority. The final battle with their perfect round numbers of 10,000 screams abstract literature. Laman and Nephi are to perfect in their opposing natures, too black and white - they are poetic constructs or moral archetypes. Nephi took aspects of Laban to create a persona in his book. Nephi was not teaching us about his brother Laban, he was teaching us about righteousness and wickedness, good and evil, obedience and disobedience. King Noah vs King Benjamin, the people of Limhi vs the people of Alma.  

Today we get up in arms when it is revealed that a general authority's stories from the war were either exaggerations or complete fabrications but this is modern criticisms. Back in the day, this is how they wrote. The facts did not matter so much as the principles being conveyed. 

I understand you to be saying that you believe Nephi, Laman, Moroni, et al., we’re real people who fudged their stories.

Edited February 24, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Freedom]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I understand you to be saying that you believe Nephi, Laman, Moroni, et Al., we’re real people who fudged their stories.

They recorded their stories according to the literary norms of the day. We have the religious text, not the historical record. They shared what was pertinent to teach a gospel message. 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Freedom said:

They recorded their stories according to the literary norms of the day. We have the religious text, not the historical record. They shared what was pertinent to teach a gospel message. 

I was asking about their actual existence.

[Freedom]

20 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I was asking about their actual existence.

I am not clear on what you are referring to. Ancient writers did not write to tell history, they wrote to teach about gods covenant. Consequently, they use historical events to establish his covenant. whether or not they were real people or real events is not relevant. I do not believe one can accept the Book of Mormon to be scripture and at the same time believe all the actors in the book are fictional. I am simply commenting on how events recorded in ancient books should be understood. They are literal (not fiction) and abstract (not concrete). There was a Noah and a flood, but the story of Noah in the bible is not of Noah the man, but Noah the archetype. If it were a historical record, we would have observed him building a boat, not an ark. The book of Mormon refers to Adam as a representation of our nature. (Mosiah 3:16). Just because a rose is used to symbolizes love does not mean there are not roses.  

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, Freedom said:

I am not clear on what you are referring to. Ancient writers did not write to tell history, they wrote to teach about gods covenant. Consequently, they use historical events to establish his covenant. whether or not they were real people or real events is not relevant. I do not believe one can accept the Book of Mormon to be scripture and at the same time believe all the actors in the book are fictional. I am simply commenting on how events recorded in ancient books should be understood. They are literal (not fiction) and abstract (not concrete). There was a Noah and a flood, but the story of Noah in the bible is not of Noah the man, but Noah the archetype. If it were a historical record, we would have observed him building a boat, not an ark. The book of Mormon refers to Adam as a representation of our nature. (Mosiah 3:16). Just because a rose is used to symbolizes love does not mean there are not roses.  

So do you believe there really were Nephites and Lamanites? Was there really a man named Moroni who hid his people’s records in a stone box and centuries later turned them over to Joseph Smith?

Edited February 24, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Freedom]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

So do you believe there really were Nephites and Lamanites? Was there really a man named Moroni who hid his people’s records in a stone box and centuries later turned them over to Joseph Smith?

ummm, did you not read my posts? You seem to be completely missing what I am trying to say.