I learned in church today

[pellegrino]

I'm feeling out of it, I haven't learned anything new in church for a long long time, and it's not for lack of trying or going.

Mark Grace, is this what your life is like?

[Northwestcoug]

Indeximony.

Teenage girl. Indexing can save you from punography.

She also told parents that she knows how hard it is to bring little kids to church week after week.

She ain't kidding. Indexing saved this guy from punography:

https://www.lds.org/media-library/vi...=HPTH090414391

[Bruiserstone]

I learned that if you ask why Satan gets to talk to God in the Book of Job (when no unclean thing can enter his presence) you'll then learn that people in your class think that that rule doesn't apply to Lucifer since he is Jesus's brother and they knew each other really well so they must talk from time to time. I also learned that if you ask how was God not the author of the evil done to Job's family, you'll be told that God "allowed" it and that that doesn't mean that he did it. If you counter with, "So Pontius Pilate just allowed Jesus to be crucified, he didn't do it himself" people won't really like that and one will say, "IF YOU GO KILL YOURSELF, GOD ISN'T RESPONSIBLE." When you ask how it was fair to Job's original children that they be killed to teach Job a lesson about loving God, you'll be told that they were sealed to him and will be an eternal family.

Even back in my most literal of believing days I thought of the Book of Job as an allegory. In gospel doctrine I realized halfway I was the only one or one of the few that thought the story was not literal.

[creekster]

I learned that if you ask why Satan gets to talk to God in the Book of Job (when no unclean thing can enter his presence) you'll then learn that people in your class think that that rule doesn't apply to Lucifer since he is Jesus's brother and they knew each other really well so they must talk from time to time. I also learned that if you ask how was God not the author of the evil done to Job's family, you'll be told that God "allowed" it and that that doesn't mean that he did it. If you counter with, "So Pontius Pilate just allowed Jesus to be crucified, he didn't do it himself" people won't really like that and one will say, "IF YOU GO KILL YOURSELF, GOD ISN'T RESPONSIBLE." When you ask how it was fair to Job's original children that they be killed to teach Job a lesson about loving God, you'll be told that they were sealed to him and will be an eternal family.

I led the GD discussion on the Book of Job a few weeks ago. we had a very lively discussion about whether or not job existed as a person and, even if he did, whether or not the events described in the book ever took place. we had people arrayed al along the spectrum on these questions, It was a good discussion. The bishop, who is a good friend of mine, and I jad a discussion later about it as well. He felt that the book was literal to some degree but conceded the problems (some of which your post here refers to) and certainly had no problem that it seems clear beyond cavil to me it is an allegory.

[Harry Tic]

Even back in my most literal of believing days I thought of the Book of Job as an allegory. In gospel doctrine I realized halfway I was the only one or one of the few that thought the story was not literal.

I used to think that the literal/figurative faultline is what distinguished the liberals from the conservatives in the church. Now I realize it's more complicated: liberals tend to take the moral teachings of the New Testament literally and the stories figuratively while conservatives do the opposite.

[ERCougar]

I used to think that the literal/figurative faultline is what distinguished the liberals from the conservatives in the church. Now I realize it's more complicated: liberals tend to take the moral teachings of the New Testament literally and the stories figuratively while conservatives do the opposite.

Lol. This is great. I'm stealing it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

On the topic of Job, this was recently published by Greg Kofford books.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...rd_i=154606011

I have it on my kindle but haven't read it yet. I have seen nothing but glowing reviews. Written for an LDS audience, but definitely not a sunday school approach. See the short reviews.

[Northwestcoug]

Even back in my most literal of believing days I thought of the Book of Job as an allegory. In gospel doctrine I realized halfway I was the only one or one of the few that thought the story was not literal.

I remember the first time I heard this in SS, about 10 years ago. The member said matter-of-factly that the book of Job was an allegory, and not literal, but had some good lessons. I had never heard of this in an official capacity, and from the hushed silence in the classroom that day, neither did the majority of those attending. It kind of floored me. I had never even considered the possibility of Job being an allegory. Although I thought it possible that some of the more fantastical/crazy stories in the OT could have been not literal, I hadn't considered that with Job. I'm not sure why, since it really is a crazy story.

Of course, if you're willing to accept Job as an allegory it becomes exceedingly difficult to hold on to a literal belief of most of the OT. And for most of scripture...

[Jeff Lebowski]

I remember the first time I heard this in SS, about 10 years ago. The member said matter-of-factly that the book of Job was an allegory, and not literal, but had some good lessons. I had never heard of this in an official capacity, and from the hushed silence in the classroom that day, neither did the majority of those attending. It kind of floored me. I had never even considered the possibility of Job being an allegory. Although I thought it possible that some of the more fantastical/crazy stories in the OT could have been not literal, I hadn't considered that with Job. I'm not sure why, since it really is a crazy story.

Of course, if you're willing to accept Job as an allegory it becomes exceedingly difficult to hold on to a literal belief of most of the OT. And for most of scripture...

I am not sure why either. You really thought that God routinely made bets with Satan?

[Northwestcoug]

I am not sure why either. You really thought that God routinely made bets with Satan?

Um, yeah, I guess so. But since a literal interpretation of scripture was the default teaching for most of my church-going life, I also believed that God killed a lot of people back in the day. So when I first heard of the possibility of allegory, it became very difficult, very quickly, to decide what was literal and what was myth.

I do not think that my experience is out of the ordinary here.

[wuapinmon]

I am not sure why either. You really thought that God routinely made bets with Satan?

My ward does. Like, seriously.

[MarkGrace]

I didn't just learn this on Sunday, but rather throughout the year. Teaching little kids the Old Testament kind of sucks. What a messed up book.

[Northwestcoug]

Just for fun, I looked at the LDS OT study manual online. It looks identical to the Job chapter in the institute manual. Near the end of the chapter, it asks, 'was Job a real person'? Here it is:

Was Job a Real Person?

...Adam Clarke wrote of Job’s identity and existence: “I shall not trouble my readers with the arguments which have been used by learned men, pro and con, relative to the particulars already mentioned: were I to do this, I must transcribe a vast mass of matter, which, though it might display great learning in the authors, would most certainly afford little edification to the great bulk of my readers. My own opinion on those points they may naturally wish to know; and to that opinion they have a right: it is such as I dare avow, and such as I feel no disposition to conceal. I believe Job to have been a real person, and his history to be a statement of facts.” (The Holy Bible … with a Commentary and Critical Notes, 3:5.)

Meservy noted: “Although some scholars have felt that the book is not a true story about a real man, I think the majority of the scholars do.This is significant... There are other reasons for regarding Job as an historical person but, to me, the most decisive criterion in this regard, is the fact that when Joseph Smith and his people were in great distress, and Joseph Smith went to the Lord and said, ‘Oh God, where art thou? Where is the pavilion that covereth thy hiding place.’ The Lord responded to his appeal for help by saying, ‘my son, peace be to thy soul; thine adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment; and then if thou endure it well, God shall exalt thee on high … Thou art not yet as Job; thy friends do not contend against thee, neither charge thee with transgressions, as they did Job’ (D&C 121:7–10, emphasis added). Now, if Job were not real and his suffering, therefore, were merely the figment of some author’s imagination, and Joseph Smith on the other hand was very real, and his suffering and that of his people were not imaginary, then for the Lord to chide him because his circumstances were not as bad as Job’s were, would provide an intolerable comparison, since one cannot compare real with unreal things. On the other hand, since the Lord did make the comparison, it must be a real one. I would, therefore, conclude on this basis alone, that Job was a very real person. The Brethren, also, when they have referred to Job, have regarded him as a real person, for example, John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 7:197–198; 18:309–310; 20:305–306; 22:319–320; Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses 18:30; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses 19:315.” (“Job: ‘Yet Will I Trust in Him,’” pp. 154–55.)

It then goes on about the specifics of the story:

Some have questioned whether God converses with the devil and his spirit-followers as described here. These verses may be a poetic way of setting the stage for what follows in Job’s life—his afflictions, temptations, loss of worldly goods—rather than a reporting of an actual conversation. The Lord does not bargain with Satan or agree to his evil deeds. However, Satan is permitted by the Lord to afflict and torment man until Lucifer’s allotted time on earth is done. Thus, Job’s trials would be consistent with the concept that Satan was allowed by God to bring the afflictions upon Job, not because of a bargain God made with Satan, but because it fit God’s purposes for Job.

So I guess you could say that the idea of a gambling god is not officially taught as the literal truth, though I'm not sure how that can be said with certainty. Is it just that the idea of a god that converses with the devil is unsavory? Or maybe that a god that allows bad things to happen for unknown 'divine' reasons is more palatable than one who almost works in concert with satan's plans to torment people, even though in both instances the subsequent 'growth' of people is apparently for their good?

I guess my point is that I think the official declaration of whether or not Job was allegorical is far from settled. It seems to me that the official teaching is that we really don't believe that God and Satan regularly place bets on people to see how they deal with adversity. But other than that, Job was a real person and most of the account really happened.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Well sure. You can find LDS sources arguing for a literal flood too. More and more members seem to be just fine with the allegory route.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Lol. This is great. I'm stealing it.

I agree and intend to do likewise. Our OT class has lagged behind and we're doing Job this Sunday. I am prepared.