Do you take all the Old Testament stories as literal?

[askandanswer]

On 1/2/2017 at 5:50 PM, prisonchaplain said:

We part ways here. Those acts of violence (usually judgment) ordered by God happened. If I do not understand why, or if I struggle with the justice of certain events in scripture, those ultimately become "back-burner" questions.  So, when I don't get the why, I trust until I do...sometimes for many many years.

Five sets of reasons that might explain everything that God does:

On 12/4/2016 at 7:56 AM, askandanswer said:

Vort’s question, raised in his post entitled “Fighting on enemy ground” in the General Discussion forum, leads to me think of the “why” reasons that might lie behind the laws and commandments that God has given us. To me, there seems to be four sets of possible reasons, which I think, taken either individually or together, might cover all possible reasons why God has given us the laws He has. These reasons are:

 

 

1 Because the laws He has given us must be consistent with some sort of higher, eternal law, which even God is subject to. For example, there must be opposition in all things and we grow by making righteous choices in the face of that opposition, and eternal justice demands that sins be paid for.

 

 

2. Because He loves us and knows what is best for us, and wants us to be happy, and He knows from His own experience that obedience to the set of laws He has given us provides a greater likelihood of more people experiencing greater happiness than any other set of laws He could have given us. For example, (Old Testament | Genesis 2:24)

24  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.''

 

3. Because the laws He has given us reflect His personal preference, eg, Adam-ondi-Ahman will be the place where Adam comes to visit his people for the last days, rather than my back yard

 

 

4. Because God is trying to mold our eternal character to fit an outcome He would like to achieve eg,

(Book of Mormon | Alma 7:9)

9  But behold, the Spirit hath said this much unto me, saying: Cry unto this people, saying—Repent ye, and prepare the way of the Lord, and walk in his paths, which are straight; for behold, the kingdom of heaven is at hand, and the Son of God cometh upon the face of the earth.

and

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 45:9)

9  And even so I have sent mine everlasting covenant into the world, to be a light to the world, and to be a standard for my people, and for the Gentiles to seek to it, and to be a messenger before my face to prepare the way before me.

 

 

Of course, in some situations, or for some laws, there is likely to be some overlap between these four possible reasons, in that one law could be explainable by more than one reason. On the other hand, it may well be that there are some laws, or some situations, that can only be explained by one of these reasons.

 

 

What do you think? Do these four possible reasons for God’s many laws adequately cover all of the reasons for all of God’s laws? Are more reasons needed? Are fewer? If so, what more reasons are needed, or which of these four are not needed?

ps

After thinking about it during church today, it seems that I need to add another reason that can help to explain why God does what he does. 

5. To accommodate the weaknesses of man. For example, Matthew 19: 7 - 8

(New Testament | Matthew 19:7 - 8)
7  They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8  He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
 

PC. I think the above 5 possibilities might embrace all the possible reasons why God does what He does although I admit its not a straightforward task to link a specific event to one of these reasons. If you think more reasons are needed, or if you think any of the above reasons are not needed, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts. 

On 1/2/2017 at 5:50 PM, prisonchaplain said:

 

[Guest]

On ‎1‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 11:50 PM, prisonchaplain said:

We part ways here. Those acts of violence (usually judgment) ordered by God happened. If I do not understand why, or if I struggle with the justice of certain events in scripture, those ultimately become "back-burner" questions. Sometimes I stumble upon answers--even years later. Other times I may not get my answer. God's proven himself far too often for me to feel competent to condemn his determinations.  LDS methods of interpretation may allow for more flexibility (saying certain stories are parables, or allegory, for example). I don't have that luxury. So, when I don't get the why, I trust until I do...sometimes for many many years.

This is exactly the way we all should approach it.  But it is far too easy to try to mold God into the image of what God is "supposed" to be instead of trying to change ourselves into His image.  That is where the attitude of believing "oh God couldn't possibly have done that, so that must be just a story or mistranslation or something."

The LDS belief that the Bible has errors in it does NOT open the gate to anyone cherry picking what to believe and what not to believe that is in it.  It only allows direct revelation to correct it.  But I've unfortunately seen too many Mormons use this as an excuse to cherry pick -- even to believe something that is contrary to LDS doctrine.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Five sets of reasons that might explain everything that God does:

I was about to add several other examples of why He does things that don't seem to make sense.  But upon closer examination I realized that they were simply subsets of the reasons you gave.   So, I'll have to say that it is a pretty good list.

[prisonchaplain]

4 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Five sets of reasons that might explain everything that God does:

PC. I think the above 5 possibilities might embrace all the possible reasons why God does what He does although I admit its not a straightforward task to link a specific event to one of these reasons. If you think more reasons are needed, or if you think any of the above reasons are not needed, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts. 

I suggested one earlier that I'm not sure fits into those 5:  God chooses to destroy a civilization to prevent future generations from suffering and evil. Part of that may be the justice aspect, but another part is mercy. For some, it really is better not to be born. 

BTW, the 5 reasons you offer are sound--and could even make for a 5-part sermon some day. 

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

This is exactly the way we all should approach it.  But it is far too easy to try to mold God into the image of what God is "supposed" to be instead of trying to change ourselves into His image.  That is where the attitude of believing "oh God couldn't possibly have done that, so that must be just a story or mistranslation or something."

The LDS belief that the Bible has errors in it does NOT open the gate to anyone cherry picking what to believe and what not to believe that is in it.  It only allows direct revelation to correct it.  But I've unfortunately seen too many Mormons use this as an excuse to cherry pick -- even to believe something that is contrary to LDS doctrine.

We agree, so maybe I should leave well enough alone. Yet, I must admit, when I first discovered--at this site--that the Song of Solomon was de-canonized by Joseph Smith I was surprised. I thought that if this could be done, then any scriptural difficulties could be dismissed by modern revelation. Of course, my musings were those of an outsider. However, when @ldsister said that this very precedent is what emboldened her to believe that it was reasonable to question older revelations, in light of what God has revealed of late, I found that thinking plausible. Perhaps the rough stuff was missing important details. Maybe the ancient writer included his personal human views with God's revelation? Maybe it was allegory?  

I see from this string that most here won't go there.  Most agree with me that it's best to leave scripture alone unless a prophet has made a clear pronouncement.  Still, how can plausible speculation about the most difficult passages be automatically dismissed, given an entire book of the OT was said to be uninspired?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

We agree, so maybe I should leave well enough alone. Yet, I must admit, when I first discovered--at this site--that the Song of Solomon was de-canonized by Joseph Smith I was surprised. I thought that if this could be done, then any scriptural difficulties could be dismissed by modern revelation. Of course, my musings were those of an outsider. However, when @ldsister said that this very precedent is what emboldened her to believe that it was reasonable to question older revelations, in light of what God has revealed of late, I found that thinking plausible. Perhaps the rough stuff was missing important details. Maybe the ancient writer included his personal human views with God's revelation? Maybe it was allegory? 

I see from this string that most here won't go there.  Most agree with me that it's best to leave scripture alone unless a prophet has made a clear pronouncement.  Still, how can plausible speculation about the most difficult passages be automatically dismissed, given an entire book of the OT was said to be uninspired?

One could get really technical and speculative about what can or cannot be de-canonized.  But when we have coming on 200 years of modern theological development, the likelihood that entire books of scripture would be further de-canonized is almost nil.

I'd go back to the concentric circles model and ask what is interpretive and opinion vs what is core, dogma, and doctrine.  Doctrine can be changed minimally or based on better understanding or a huge change in circumstance, etc.  It has to be big to change something that is doctrine.  To change dogma (depending on what you categorize as dogma) would take a biblical level public miracle on the order of the succession to Brigham Young.

If our core is changed (The saviorship of Jesus Christ) we might as well just throw all our beliefs out the window.

I'm sure others would draw lines elsewhere, but you get the idea.

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

 

I see from this string that most here won't go there.  Most agree with me that it's best to leave scripture alone unless a prophet has made a clear pronouncement.  Still, how can plausible speculation about the most difficult passages be automatically dismissed, given an entire book of the OT was said to be uninspired?

It can be dismissed because the Prophet who said that the book was not inspired went through all the Bible making such commentary and corrections.  If we accept Joseph Smith as a Prophet (which we do), if we accept that there was an apostasy where flawed mortal men altered the word of God (which we do), if we accept that God used Joseph Smith as a prophet of God to restore plain an important truths that were lost and altered, (which we do)...  Then we have to accept that scriptures as we currently have them are what God wants us to have/know/understand at this time. 

 

Unless we wish to postulate an apostasy after Joseph Smith restored things (Which we don't)

 

[Traveler]

 

One big problem many have in religious circles is that what once generated scriptures became missing.  The concept of canon is actually an Pagan notion (Greek - Hellenist) that was adopted by early Christians when what generated scriptures was lost throught apostasy.  Anciently there was no Scripture Canon until the influences of the pagan Greeks.  I personally believe Christians fell into this trap of canon with the idea of "one way" or path.  But Jesus taught that he was the way. 

 

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Thanks to @Carborendum  @estradling75  and @Traveler.  I figured there were some answers to my questions, and this is certainly the place to ask.    I definitely appreciate the idea of scales of importance--that changes should generally be rare, and that the more import one would have the greater the burden of justification. Likewise, the idea that Joseph Smith was unique in his working with scripture, and that such large scale work is not likely to repeat itself in a single generation, is a helpful insight.  Finally, @Traveler always has unique historical understandings. My only follow up is to ask whether or not the Jews also gave in to Pagan influence?  After all, they not only have the Tanakh (our OT), but also the Talmud, and hierarchies of commentaries.  If Christians were deceived, then Judaism was exponentially so.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

I definitely appreciate the idea of scales of importance--that changes should generally be rare, and that the more import one would have the greater the burden of justification. 

Just checking... are you aware of our history on how Brigham was declared as the successor to Joseph?

Edited January 3, 2017 by Guest

[prisonchaplain]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Just checking... are you aware of our history on how Brigham was declared as the successor to Joseph?

The short answer is no. I understand that Brigham Young was a strong personality, but I don't know the details.

Edited January 3, 2017 by prisonchaplain

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

The short answer is no. I understand that he was a strong personality, but I don't know the details.

Well, what I was referring to before about the succession being a Biblical level public miracle...  There was actually a crisis in the church because there was no precedent for the succession.  Several parties claimed the mantle.

Quote

On that day a miracle occurred before the body of the Church—Brigham Young was transfigured before the people, and the succession crisis of the Church was resolved...

People of all ages were present, and they later recorded their experiences. Benjamin F. Johnson, twenty-six at that time, remembered, “As soon as he [Brigham Young] spoke I jumped upon my feet, for in every possible degree it was Joseph’s voice, and his person, in look, attitude, dress and appearance was Joseph himself, personified; and I knew in a moment the spirit and mantle of Joseph was upon him.”

Zina Huntington, who was a young woman twenty-one years old at that time, said “President Young was speaking. It was the voice of Joseph Smith—not that of Brigham Young. His very person was changed. … I closed my eyes. I could have exclaimed, I know that is Joseph Smith’s voice! Yet I knew he had gone. But the same spirit was with the people.”

George Q. Cannon, then a boy of fifteen, declared that “it was the voice of Joseph himself; and not only was it the voice of Joseph which was heard; but it seemed in the eyes of the people as though it was the very person of Joseph which stood before them. … They both saw and heard with their natural eyes and ears, and then the words which were uttered came, accompanied by the convincing power of God, to their hearts, and they were filled with the Spirit and with great joy.”

Wilford Woodruff testified, “If I had not seen him with my own eyes, there is no one that could have convinced me that it was not Joseph Smith speaking.”

https://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual/chapter-twenty-three-the-twelve-to-bear-off-the-kingdom?lang=eng

 

Edited January 3, 2017 by Guest

[askandanswer]

12 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

We agree, so maybe I should leave well enough alone. Yet, I must admit, when I first discovered--at this site--that the Song of Solomon was de-canonized by Joseph Smith I was surprised. I thought that if this could be done, then any scriptural difficulties could be dismissed by modern revelation. Of course, my musings were those of an outsider. However, when @ldsister said that this very precedent is what emboldened her to believe that it was reasonable to question older revelations, in light of what God has revealed of late, I found that thinking plausible. Perhaps the rough stuff was missing important details. Maybe the ancient writer included his personal human views with God's revelation? Maybe it was allegory?  

I see from this string that most here won't go there.  Most agree with me that it's best to leave scripture alone unless a prophet has made a clear pronouncement.  Still, how can plausible speculation about the most difficult passages be automatically dismissed, given an entire book of the OT was said to be uninspired?

This is just a reminder that the current edition of the Doctrine and Covenants no longer contains the Lectures on Faith, which were included, and probably considered to be scripture, up until the 1921 edition. De-canonized might not be the right term given that the Lectures on Faith (Doctrine and Covenants | Preface Testimony of 12:6)
"were not given or presented as revelations to the whole Church." but its certainly the case that what was once accepted as LDS scripture by the LDS church is no longer accepted by the LDS church as scripture. I'm too lazy and tired right now to think through what the implications might be for this discussion but I just thought it was worth pointing out. 

[zil]

9 hours ago, askandanswer said:

"were not given or presented as revelations to the whole Church." but its certainly the case that what was once accepted as LDS scripture by the LDS church is no longer accepted by the LDS church as scripture.

I'm not convinced these were every accepted as scripture so much as people wanted a copy, and as long as we're printing this book, why not add this stuff.  See the discussion in this video.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, zil said:

I'm not convinced these were every accepted as scripture so much as people wanted a copy, and as long as we're printing this book, why not add this stuff.  See the discussion in this video.

It might have been helpful to mention that the LoF discussion begins at around 24:30.  I just listened to the entire... very dry... Unisom-like video just to get to the point about the LoF.  

I'm going to bed now.

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It might have been helpful to mention that the LoF discussion begins at around 24:30.  I just listened to the entire... very dry... Unisom-like video just to get to the point about the LoF.  

I'm going to bed now.

Sorry.  (I always watch at 1.5 or 2x, so the videos are never that long or that boring...)

[Traveler]

On ‎1‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 2:40 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Thanks to @Carborendum  @estradling75  and @Traveler.  I figured there were some answers to my questions, and this is certainly the place to ask.    I definitely appreciate the idea of scales of importance--that changes should generally be rare, and that the more import one would have the greater the burden of justification. Likewise, the idea that Joseph Smith was unique in his working with scripture, and that such large scale work is not likely to repeat itself in a single generation, is a helpful insight.  Finally, @Traveler always has unique historical understandings. My only follow up is to ask whether or not the Jews also gave in to Pagan influence?  After all, they not only have the Tanakh (our OT), but also the Talmud, and hierarchies of commentaries.  If Christians were deceived, then Judaism was exponentially so.

What we learn for historians (Josephus) is that the Hellenist had a profound effect with the Jews and early Christians.  A study of Paul’s epistles we see the effects on early Christians of his era while he was living and writing.  Josephus point out that the Herodian’s were heavily influenced by the Greeks and specifically the Hellenist. 

The pagan concept of canon is one specific standard “document” from which all other related things are “measured”.  @prisonchaplan referenced the Jews and their collection that parallels the Christian Old Testament.  What we learn from the Dead Sea Scriptures is that different versions of the same book of scripture not only existed among the Jews before Christ but all version were considered sacred scripture.  At least two versions of each book existed in the DSS.

Included in my point of pagan influence is that by the time we begin our modern era what Traditional Christianity had considered the Gold Standard in ancient scriptural manuscripts had been well established (Masoretic).  But with the find of the DSS we learn that the Masoretic are among the least reliable of ancient Biblical texts.

As per the New Testament – I would point out that the Greeks were a profound influence – Just in the influence of preserving the New Testament in Greek.  One can argue many point as to why but the language of scripture in important but in this case the culture and context of the New Testament was Jewish not Greek.  The fact that Josephus warned of Greeks intending to alter Jewish scripture ought to be a very big red flag.

 

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

To this day Jewish leadership holds the Masoretic text with respect. While much of what @Traveler says about the existence of different versions etc. is true, there appears to be a great deal of consistency and reliability to the overall OT text--especially the Torah.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-masoretic-text/

As for the Evangelical Christian perspective on the development of canon, Dr. Wayne Grudem offers an excellent overview:  https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/canon-scripture-wayne-grudem  In short, he argues that canon development is seen and affirmed within scripture itself.

Edited January 5, 2017 by prisonchaplain

[Vort]

I understand that comparison of the Masoretic text with older Dead Sea Scrolls texts is eye-opening. I gather that, depending on your expectations, you find either that the Masoretic manuscripts are surprisingly reliable or that they appear to be surprisingly corrupt. If you expect all sorts of changes, you probably will fall into the first camp, whereas if you expect absolute textual fidelity, you'll fall into the latter. I'm guessing most Latter-day Saints would be the former, and most other conservative, believing Christians would be the latter.

[Traveler]

As far as Biblical scripture is concerned – I personally would feel more confident with more transparency concerning the various versions of the Bible so labeled pending on the class of ancient manuscript text that spawn a particular version.  But this would mean that there is no single canon but rather a class or library.  I realize that there already is significant divergence of interpretation of various books of the Bible but I believe it would serve the individual student to realize the differences rather than have their minister or some random scholar define for them what they think or believe is true concerning the scriptures they think or claim to be G-d breathed.

 

The Traveler

[MrShorty]

I read this blog entry on Ben Spackman's blog (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/benjaminthescribe/2017/01/mormon-said-believe-settles/  ), and immediately thought of this thread. A few things that stood out to me.

1) Ben takes some exception to what he calls "face value" reading of scripture, which brought me right back here to PC's KISS principle when reading scripture. How do these ideas change what it means to read scripture "simply" if " Scripture is rich, complex, multi-vocal, and both divinely inspired and human human [sic]."? Does it lead to an "elitism" that believes that only thoroughly educated (and maybe highly magnified) people can read scripture? How much extra-Biblical/extra-scriptural information and knowledge is needed in order to get an accurate interpretation of scripture?

2) What do we as LDS make of the "hypocrisy" Ben starts with " We casually write off or discard ancient aspects of the Bible that seem weird or uncomfortable, but then we approach our own uniquely Mormon scriptures just as those Protestants approach their Bibles, "? Could this be part of the cause for non-LDS criticisms that we don't take the Bible seriously? What do we believe about the "inerrancy" of the uniquely LDS part of the canon?

3) He goes through 3 examples of his thesis. 2 of these examples (the flood and the historical Adam) are perhaps interesting because these are not uniquely LDS (even if he uses Joseph Fielding Smith and the BoM as the specific example). I see similar arguments made by Ken Ham and other YEC types. I could see some interesting discussion around the JFS quote  “it must have been approved by the Lord or it would not be in the Book of Mormon”. Does inclusion in scripture make something "approved by the Lord", (which could, possibly get deeper into the Evangelical concept of "God-breathed")? Does the Lord's approval imply historical or scientific accuracy? As quoted above, Ben argues for both divine and human influences on scripture, what does it really mean that there are human influences in scripture? (Lest the non-LDS followers of the conversation feel tempted to call this a uniquely LDS problem, I see very similar statements made by many non-LDS Biblical scholars (I do not know how well these are received, as I know that many of these statements seem to come from more "liberal" groups like those at Princeton rather than those at the Moody Institute)).

I'm sure there is more that could be pulled out and discussed, but those are 3 things that jumped out at me.

Edited January 12, 2017 by MrShorty
typos

[Blackmarch]

On December 26, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Zarahemla said:

Adam and Eve in Garden, Noah's Ark and global flood, Tower of Babel, Jonah in the whale. Do you take all the Old Testament stories as literal events or do you think some are just stories with important messages handed down?

Unless i recieve specific revelation on them, i take the all three ways. As forliteralness i try to hold back my preconceptions as much as possible.