LDS vs. non-LDS Christian views of the Bible


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Old Testament makes up about three-fourths of the Bible. One might therefore assume that a typical Bible student would spend 75% or so of his time reading the Old Testament. But I doubt this is true across the board for any Christian denomination. In fact, I have talked to non-LDS Christian friends who openly say that they never read the Old Testament. Their logic is as follows: Christ came and gave us the New Testament, so why bother reading that old, out-of-date stuff?

It seems that we Latter-day Saints take the Old Testament much more seriously than do most of our non-LDS Christian brothers and sisters. Not that we give the Old Testament proportional time with the New Testament, but I would guess (with absolutely nothing to back up my opinion) that the average Latter-day Saint spends perhaps 1/4 of his Bible study time in the Old Testament, which I gather is still quite a bit more than Christians of other denominations. (I welcome any corrections of perception that @prisonchaplain or anyone else cares to make.)

A contrast between the Old and New Testaments that I find fascinating is the relative level of writing in each. You can't really see it clearly in translations, but the Old Testament constitutes the best existing collection of ancient Hebrew literature, and one of the greatest collection of any Near Eastern literature of around three thousand years ago. The books of the Old Testament preserve some of the most educated and erudite writing that the ancient Hebrews ever produced. It includes books of extensive history, myth (in the sense of traditional accounts of ancient history, not necessarily fictitious tales), wisdom literature, and poetry. If the world existed as it does today but had never known the Old Testament, and the Old Testament was discovered today, it would doubtless rank as one of the greatest archaeological and anthropological finds of all time.

In comparison, the New Testament is written at a fourth-grade level, metaphorically (and perhaps literally) speaking. It was not written in a fully developed idiom like ancient Hebrew, but in a bastardized Greek dialect called "Koiné" (κοινή), a simplified Greek spoken largely by foreigners who didn't otherwise speak Greek natively. The books and epistles of the New Testament were all originally written in Koiné Greek, except for the gospel of Matthew, which appears to have originally be written in Aramaic, a Semitic language similar to Hebrew that Jesus spoke natively. Linguistically, the books of the New Testament are very simple, especially compared with e.g. the Psalms. They are straight, simple recountings, told in plain language, largely unadorned by the sort of linguistic artifice you encounter elsewhere. Perhaps the Old Testament writers were addressing an audience that they assumed would be well-educated and understand the nuances of their language, while the New Testament writers were laboring simply to be understood correctly by a widely varying audience, one with little social background in common with the authors or even with each other.

I'm no authority on any of this, of course, so don't bet the farm on what I write. But in my own mind, I compare it to the difference between Joseph Smith's plain, unadorned, straightforward prose in the Pearl of Great Price's "Joseph Smith—History" (JS-H) versus Oliver Cowdery's much more educated, sophisticated, beautiful writing as can be read in the footnote at the end of JS-H, which despite its grandiloquence just doesn't have the same power or gut-level effect as Joseph Smith's.

in any case, I do think Latter-day Saints take the Old Testament much more seriously than most other Christians. We see the Old Testament as being a living book with full application to us today, not just some ancient relic of a long-dead civilization and equally dead covenant. The first chapters of Genesis are invaluable in understanding our fundamental ideas about the Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement of Jesus Christ (and not coincidentally of our temple liturgy). We see Isaiah, quoted throughout the Book of Mormon, as both a warning for our day and as a blueprint for what is to come. We see the covenants as established in Genesis and the history of Israel as our own covenants and history. Jeremiah is invaluable in understanding the context of the origins of the Lehites. Obviously, other Old Testament books such as Malachi are of special interest to us. I think we Latter-day Saints just find a whole lot more relevance in the Old Testament than do most other Christians.

Again, corrections or further observations are welcome. This thread is intended as a discussion, not a lecture (which I'm not qualified to give).

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post is more true than I want to admit, though how much so would vary greatly. Some of the restorationist sects--the Church of Christ in particular--openly say they focus on the New Testament. Also, a few mega-church pastors, Andy Stanley in particular, have all but abandoned the Old Testament, believing it contains too much that is difficult for Christians to explain to a hostile culture (God's command to wipe out whole societies including babies, for example). Then there is the well-intentioned claim of some groups to be "a New Testament church" or individually, "I'm a New Testament Christian." Though I react against all this, calling myself a Bible Christian, still, when given the choice, I took two years of Koine Greek rather than a year of that and a year of Hebrew.

Still...I defend the Old Testament the way I defend the discipline of History--we need it to have perspective. It's like a rearview mirror. If we want to understand where we are and where we are going we need to know where we've been.

So, unqualified though he be, I've set up an appointment between @Vort and Bro. Andy Stanley, for this Saturday at 4:00 a.m, via Zoom. I'll be on me knees praying for you both to have a productive time of it. :twothumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

So, unqualified though he be, I've set up an appointment between @Vort and Bro. Andy Stanley, for this Saturday at 4:00 a.m, via Zoom.

I don't know if my Zoom will reach all the way down to Georgia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/13/2020 at 4:52 PM, Vort said:

The Old Testament makes up about three-fourths of the Bible. One might therefore assume that a typical Bible student would spend 75% or so of his time reading the Old Testament. But I doubt this is true across the board for any Christian denomination. In fact, I have talked to non-LDS Christian friends who openly say that they never read the Old Testament. Their logic is as follows: Christ came and gave us the New Testament, so why bother reading that old, out-of-date stuff?

It's worse than that.  We also have the Pauline Christians.  They don't care about anything that was written in the gospels, or The Acts, or the epistles of other apostles, or even Revelation because they weren't written by Paul.  So, they effectively cut out a lot of the New Testament as well.  That's, what, 1/3 of the New Testament remaining?

Why deny MORE of God's word?  But... whatever.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Vort said:

It seems that we Latter-day Saints take the Old Testament much more seriously than do most of our non-LDS Christian brothers and sisters. Not that we give the Old Testament proportional time with the New Testament, but I would guess (with absolutely nothing to back up my opinion) that the average Latter-day Saint spends perhaps 1/4 of his Bible study time in the Old Testament, which I gather is still quite a bit more than Christians of other denominations. (I welcome any corrections of perception that @prisonchaplain or anyone else cares to make.)

I would say that this is true of those portions referenced in the scriptures of the restoration. We love the "minor" prophet Malachi because he is quoted in every one of our standard works, but I don't see that same love for Zephaniah. Joel and Amos are known (though I wouldn't necessarily say well-known) by the saints because Moroni quoted from those books and it was canonized in our Pearl of Great Price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@mordorbund We love Malachi because it offers the strongest passage about tithing. :money: 

Joel is a close second in Pentecostal circles because of the promise that in the last days God would pour out His Spirit and there would be prophesy and other spiritual gifts. :sparklygrin: 

If there is an Old Testament passage about worship bands we could get the non-denominational mega-churches on board. :fullband:

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Some may disagree but it is my opinion that not all scriptures are created equal.  Despite that all scripture is a miracle some; scripture is more useful.  It is interesting to me that Isaiah is quoted to such a degree in the Book of Mormon.  I agree with @Vort that some things in the Old Testament relate exactly to our day.  I believe Isaiah is more important than we give it credit.  But anciently the Hebrews had a book of scripture that was of great importance.  But that sacred book of scripture was deliberately excluded from the Bible.  It is a sacred record that was quoted by Christ more than all the other Old Testament books combined.  That book is the Book of Enoch.  The Book of Jude even makes a direct reference to the Book of Enoch in speaking of the Last-days.  

The Book of Enoch has not been properly preserved - and currently the best and most reliable copy come to us through the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The reality is that our scriptures are not complete.  Not the Old Testament nor the New Testament.  Even with the modern restoration of the Pear of Great Price, Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants - our sacred references are not sufficient for our needs in these last days.  I would suggest that the scripture are the lamps of the 10 Virgins that Christ spoke of and that some came to wait upon Christ thinking that they had all that was necessary.  I personally am convinced that the scriptures are incomplete by divine design.   Throughout the history of man and his relationship to G-d there have been many divine relics and gifts that were thought to have great power and authority such that the objects became objects of worship.  Dare I say that many modern Christians worship relics, scripture, their church sanctuaries or organizations and so on that they become like the serpent Moses placed on a pole that eventually had to be destroyed  because the covenant children of G-d began to worship.

Jesus never tells us what the oil was - I suspect that he intended that we solve that riddle ourselves - or else he would have told us.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, how did it go?  Anything enlightening?

Apparently, Mr. Stanley was told he'd be having a conference call with a Moron, which he thought was fine—chance to help out the handicapped and all. But when he found out he was dealing with a "Mormon", he muttered something about standards and ended the call. I tried to reassure him that he hadn't misunderstood, but he had already hung up.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2020 at 1:20 AM, prisonchaplain said:

If there is an Old Testament passage about worship bands we could get the non-denominational mega-churches on board. :fullband:

6 And David spake to the chief of the Levites to appoint their brethren to be the singers with instruments of musick, psalteries and harps and cymbals, sounding, by lifting up the voice with joy.

(Old Testament | 1 Chronicles 15:16)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Vort said:

Apparently, Mr. Staley was told he'd be having a conference call with a Moron, which he thought was fine—chance to help out the handicapped and all. But when he found out he was dealing with a "Mormon", he muttered something about standards and ended the call. I tried to reassure him that he hadn't misunderstood, but he had already hung up.

@prisonchaplain

This is not a complaint.  I'm honestly curious.

Who exactly was this guy?  If he hates Mormons that much, what was the call supposed to be about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

@prisonchaplain

This is not a complaint.  I'm honestly curious.

Who exactly was this guy?  If he hates Mormons that much, what was the call supposed to be about?

I was joking. Andy Stanley is a mega-church pastor who works really hard at trying to convert educated agnostics/atheists--especially those who have walked away from faith. Within the last couple of years or so he went so far as to say he was done defending the Old Testament. It was not necessary for Christians to do so, nor, by implication, to rely on it. The "tell" in the joke is that I, a prison chaplain in Seattle, could convince this rather famous preacher to have a Zoom session with @Vort at 4:00 a.m. 

BTW...I have no idea as to whether Andy Stanley has said anything about LDS one way or the other. @Vort was playing along with my joke, which either speaks well or poorly for both of us. 

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I was joking. Andy Stanley is a mega-church pastor who works really hard at trying to convert educated agnostics/atheists--especially those who have walked away from faith. Within the last couple of years or so he went so far as to say he was done defending the Old Testament. It was not necessary for Christians to do so, nor, by implication, to rely on it. The "tell" in the joke is that I, a prison chaplain in Seattle, could convince this rather famous preacher to have a Zoom session with @Vort at 4:00 a.m. 

1311054006_download(1).gif.547b74db194198f8b6c167af84832330.gif1260212700_download(2).gif.6f900e574b16891bf092d076dc7c2b05.gif

What? You don't believe I have long hair and wear mascara?  Pffbttb!  Skeptic.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

I was joking. Andy Stanley is a mega-church pastor who works really hard at trying to convert educated agnostics/atheists--especially those who have walked away from faith. Within the last couple of years or so he went so far as to say he was done defending the Old Testament. It was not necessary for Christians to do so, nor, by implication, to rely on it. The "tell" in the joke is that I, a prison chaplain in Seattle, could convince this rather famous preacher to have a Zoom session with @Vort at 4:00 a.m. 

BTW...I have no idea as to whether Andy Stanley has said anything about LDS one way or the other. @Vort was playing along with my joke, which either speaks well or poorly for both of us. 

Not to sound critical - but it is critical in a sense.  I have spent my life working side by side with agnostics/atheists.  I would guess that 90% or more come from home and parents of faith.  My recommendation to your friend Andy Stanley would be to better understand Science - both ancient and modern and how science and religion, together, shaped society prior to the Dark Ages.  He will loose not understanding the historical context of the Old Testament and science of the same era.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Not to sound critical - but it is critical in a sense.  I have spent my life working side by side with agnostics/atheists.  I would guess that 90% or more come from home and parents of faith.  My recommendation to your friend Andy Stanley would be to better understand Science - both ancient and modern and how science and religion, together, shaped society prior to the Dark Ages.  He will loose not understanding the historical context of the Old Testament and science of the same era.

Andy Stanley is well aware that many are critical of his approaches and statements--especially those of us who teach scripture. My concern is that too much human-conjured empathy for sin and disbelief damages our own faith far more than it impresses the target of our efforts.

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Andy Stanley is well aware that many are critical of his approaches and statements--especially those of us who teach scripture. My concern is that too much human-conjured empathy for sin and disbelief damages our own faith far more than it impresses the target of our efforts.

You are very unique in this world.  But just a thought because you are more open than others.  I have found (even within many of my LDS circles) that those of the science persuasion to be much more open to discuss religion than those of religious persuasion to be open to science.  But the main problem that I see is that those of science are best persuaded by logic and empirical evidence - those of religious background are persuaded by scripture.  But scripture is interpreted differently pending on the how a particular religion defines such.  For example, in science there is hardly any disagreement on the charge of an electron or the value of the universal gravitational constant.  But in religion it is most difficult to come to a detailed conscious of hardly anything.  This gives those of religious a tremendous disadvantage.  Not only to convert to the notion of G-d and his attributes but to the particular notion of G-d attributes that they happen to believe.  And if there is any conflict of logic (regardless of what is written in scripture) a scientist will quickly get the impression that they are wasting their time. 

In contrast - Jesus won every point of logic against the Pharisees but logic hardly convinced any of them (with very rare exception).  Jesus demonstrated that truth is very easily defended with logic.  Something few with those of exclusive religious background realize.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respect science and mathematics, in part, because I was mediocre at it. Detail people impress me greatly, again, because I'm not one. Sometimes the reverse can happen. Detail people recognize that big-picture people, or Humanities folks, think differently. Sometimes the quest for data makes seeing 'larger' a struggle. So...when I encounter someone gifted in arenas I am not, I may try to study up a bit, just to gain a common vocabulary. However, I find the best approach--one that is biblical--is to mostly listen, and only speak when I truly believe I have something that is both insightful and anointed to offer.

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I respect science and mathematics, in part, because I was mediocre at it. Detail people impress me greatly, again, because I'm not one. Sometimes the reverse can happen. Detail people recognize that big-picture people, or Humanities folks, think differently. Sometimes the quest for data makes seeing 'larger' a struggle. So...when I encounter someone gifted in arenas I am not, I may try to study up a bit, just to gain a common vocabulary. However, I find the best approach--one that is biblical--is to mostly listen, and only speak when I truly believe I have something that is both insightful and anointed to offer.

This explains a lot - especially between you and me.  I am unable to connect an idea or thought to reality and truth unless I can comprehend the logic of it.  This includes scripture.  Everything has to connect (both science and religion).  Granted there are lots of things in life that I cannot connect logically.  It is like a puzzle.  Until I know exactly where a piece fits - I cannot use it.  Once I know where it goes (fits) I can use it and only then will I understand not only where the piece fits but each piece adds to my understanding of the big picture.

When someone takes a piece and places it somewhere inside the border unattached to anything and pronounces that is where the piece fits - I may ask some questions - but without the other pieces connecting - I cannot see or understand it - it makes no sense.  In all my life, this approach has never worked (except on simple children puzzles with like 4 pieces).  Many times I have encountered where someone is sure a piece fits in an area of the puzzle and looking at a picture of the puzzle - it looks like it might - but when the pieces are connected only to discover it was tricky and the piece ends up in a very different place in the puzzle.

I use to get upset when I connect a piece and someone says - no it belongs better over here (which obviously it does not exactly fit).  I may try to explain why it does not fit - I use to get upset - I try very hard to let them discover as more pieces come together.  I believe after this life we will sit with Christ, the Father and the Holy Ghost and the puzzle will finely be completed.  I am looking forward to that because I have accumulated a rather large pile or pieces I cannot place.  I sometimes wonder if there are pieces that do not belong in the puzzle.  But I believe (have faith) that everything in the puzzle will come together and what does not belong will be discarded - so I do not attach myself to pieces that I do not know where they belong.

What is also interesting is how many times you have helped me place a piece I could not connect on my own.  This is why I read every post I see you make - there are others on this forum as well.  You and I do not quite see the same picture in the puzzle - but you have helped me see where a lot of pieces fit.  The other stuff about the puzzle that we disagree on - I guess will remain until the puzzle is done.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
On 5/13/2020 at 3:52 PM, Vort said:

Again, corrections or further observations are welcome. 

It seems to me that most Christians focus on the New Testament because their emphasis in their churches is on salvation and eternal life, concepts that are nearly absent in the Old Testament.

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott said:

It seems to me that most Christians focus on the New Testament because their emphasis in their churches is on salvation and eternal life, concepts that are nearly absent in the Old Testament.

On the contrary, I see themes of redemption, salvation, and eternal life throughout the Old Testament. The theme of Jehovah delivering his covenant people is so heavy throughout Isaiah, indeed the entire Old Testament, as to be unmistakeable. What is the Abrahamic covenant if not a covenant of salvation and eternal life? The Noachian covenant is likewise an everlasting covenant of salvation. David's psalms are replete with these themes. All of the nitpicky parts in the explanation of the law of Moses are nothing if not minute representations and implementations of salvation. Indeed, if you remove all the Old Testament material that does not have to do, directly or indirectly, with salvation and eternal life, you are left basically with the Song of Solomon, which is mostly about sex and making out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
3 hours ago, Vort said:

On the contrary, I see themes of redemption, salvation, and eternal life throughout the Old Testament. The theme of Jehovah delivering his covenant people is so heavy throughout Isaiah, indeed the entire Old Testament, as to be unmistakeable. What is the Abrahamic covenant if not a covenant of salvation and eternal life? The Noachian covenant is likewise an everlasting covenant of salvation. David's psalms are replete with these themes. All of the nitpicky parts in the explanation of the law of Moses are nothing if not minute representations and implementations of salvation. Indeed, if you remove all the Old Testament material that does not have to do, directly or indirectly, with salvation and eternal life, you are left basically with the Song of Solomon, which is mostly about sex and making out.

Yes, that it how we understand the Old Testament, but not how everyone does.

If you were to ask a non-LDS Christian for a scripture on salvation, chances are that he or she would quote something from the New Testament.   We also use a different definition of salvation than other Christians do, as well as the means to obtain it.  

As far as eternal life goes, we understand the connections in the Old Testament, but the references are rather ambiguous without further study or revelation.  Christians believe in the afterlife, but even to this day Jews, who use the books of the Old Testament debate as to whether or a not an afterlife even exist.  

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott said:

As far as eternal life goes, we understand the connections in the Old Testament, but the references are rather ambiguous without further study or revelation.  Christians believe in the afterlife, but even to this day Jews, who use the books of the Old Testament debate as to whether or a not an afterlife even exist.  

I believe that Jews continue to debate the nature of the afterlife; but the question of whether an afterlife even exists in Judaism was pretty much settled for them by the Romans when they destroyed Herod’s temple and exterminated the Sadducees, leaving the Pharisees as the predominant Jewish faction.

As far as the themes of redemption and salvation and divine love go, though:  I think much of modern Protestantism doesn’t see those concepts in the OT because Luther’s origin story requires those concepts to be absent.  Most Protestants seem very theologically invested in a Jesus who abolished a hollow, pro forma set of commandments and ordinances in favor of a vibrant, living, grace-centered spirituality (and then they use that stick to beat Catholics and Mormons for, in their view, being too works-oriented).  But I think I’d quite embarrass myself if I tried to convince an Orthodox Jew that his scripture doesn’t allow for ideas of salvation or redemption or eternal life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I believe that Jews continue to debate the nature of the afterlife; but the question of whether an afterlife even exists in Judaism was pretty much settled for them by the Romans when they destroyed Herod’s temple and exterminated the Sadducees, leaving the Pharisees as the predominant Jewish faction.

As far as the themes of redemption and salvation and divine love go, though:  I think much of modern Protestantism doesn’t see those concepts in the OT because Luther’s origin story requires those concepts to be absent.  Most Protestants seem very theologically invested in a Jesus who abolished a hollow, pro forma set of commandments and ordinances in favor of a vibrant, living, grace-centered spirituality (and then they use that stick to beat Catholics and Mormons for, in their view, being too works-oriented).  But I think I’d quite embarrass myself if I tried to convince an Orthodox Jew that his scripture doesn’t allow for ideas of salvation or redemption or eternal life. 

I haven't actually spoken with a Jew about theology in over 20 years.  But the last time I did, he said the debate was not settled.  

The last time before that was about 15 or 20 years earlier.  This one said that it depends on the rabbi.

So, unless something has happened in the past 20 years (which could certainly be) the matter is not settled in Jewish circles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share