Scriptural Historicity

[Jeff Lebowski]

I have been meaning to start this discussion for some time now. I suspect it will evoke some strong opinions, but there are some fascinating issues to explore without having to carve out a battleground to defend. I read a book recently related to this topic that I would love to discuss, but before we get to that, let's start off with this essay:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpr...ure-for-reals/

There are some people who believe that the only difference between the Greek myths (as an example) and the Bible is that Samson really killed a lion with his hands, but Hercules did not; that God really sired Jesus, and Zeus did not really sire his mortal children; that ravens really fed Elijah, but Telephus was not suckled by a deer; that Jesus really turned water into wine, but Dionysus did not; and that Balaam’s ass and the serpent in the garden really did talk, but, oh wait, there are no talking animals in Greek mythology. That is, for some people the difference between the Bible and any other ancient myth is that one tells an accurate history, while the others are all untrue history.

The problem with this view that insists on a sort of scriptural literalism and inerrancy (besides its incoherence within a Mormon framework) is that it is a losing position. The fact is the Bible cannot be taken as historically accurate. At many points, it is inconsistent with verifiable historical facts, and inconsistent with itself. In all the worry about the Bible as fiction, the irony is the greatest fiction is that the Bible is unassailable factual history.

I am afraid that anyone who is reading the scriptures as a guide to history is profoundly missing the point. This view that finds the value of scripture in historical accuracy is a product of 19th century fundamentalism. Suffice it to say that ancient people’s would have never taken such a narrow view of scripture, seeing that they offered access to the divine and to deep truths about the nature of the universe and the nature of humans being and the relationship between the human and the divine.

I really like the last two paragraphs also.

Thoughts?

[Northwestcoug]

This is a well-written article. It made me think of a time a few years ago when the GD topic was the book of Job. I believe it was the EQP who started off the discussion with, 'the book of Job is not historical, it's an allegory'. He received some pushback, and I could tell a lot of others silently disagreed. He repeated it again at the end of the lesson.

It didn't sit well with me, and as the time I wasn't sure why. At that time, my faith paradigm allowed for some leeway in interpreting most of the OT, mainly along the lines of the age of the earth and the literalness of the flood. My mindset was basically that some of the OT probably didn't happen the way it's written, but no matter, because all things are possible with God. So some of the unbelievable stories still could have happened as they are written, since God can do anything, etc. But I think that was the first time I heard the possibility of a non-literal interpretation of scripture in an official (well, as official as GD class gets) setting. It was kind of jarring. I mean, Joseph Smith re-translated the bible, right? So anything that he didn't change was essentially a correct translation. At least this is how I interpreted the importance of the JST, and I don't think I was much of an outlier.

I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that the official position of the church is that scripture is historical, unless explicitly stated by someone who has authority to interpret scripture. This certainly applies to the BOM, and by extension the bible. The wiggle room a lot of us have is really around what we perceive as non-essential doctrine. And with the age of the earth, a world-wide flood, and other fantastical stories, you're not going to get much blowback if you profess faith in an allegorical interpretation of these events. This is where the article gets it right:

Scripture is what we affirm it to be as an act of faith. Nothing more. As individuals and as a community, we see God speaking to us through a text, and we respond to that call. The places, people, experiences, and promises are sacred only insofar as a community gives them such a status. This is the difference between fiction and scripture, not some inherent qualities possessed by one or the other, but their designation as sacred by a community, and the practice of putting these texts to use to understand God’s relationship to humanity.

There's not a few on this board who derive a lot of power from the community Mormonism offers, even without much faith in the historical claims. This sense of belonging is real and a good thing in a lot of ways. It could even be more influential to the world if it could drop some of the less than savory vestiges that anchor it to the 19th century, though it seems like the trajectory is slowing moving in a positive direction.

However, this is the problem I see with the church. The only room for a member to have a connection to the church without a strong belief in all its claims is on the fringes. And this is because it's history is it's doctrine, and vice versa. There is no official reason for the church to exist if JS did not experience what he said he did, and he did not translate ancient records that described literal events. All of us, from Primary age on up, learned to develop a testimony of Jesus that was anchored by a faith in what Joseph Smith said. In effect, we have/had a testimony of the history of the church. And since we believe in the scriptures as long as they are translated correctly (and the official story is more or less that they have been, after JS got through with them), we have a testimony in the literalness of the scriptures. If you don't profess faith in literal scripture, there is some mental contortion to 'pass' the temple recommend interview.

I wish it didn't have to be that way. It would be great for many who derive power through myth and community to feel more attached to the church. There's a lot of cool stories (and a lot of terrible ones) in the scriptures. I think deep down, if most of us had to bet the farm, that we wouldn't want to do it on Samson's strength or talking asses. But they are Christianity's and Judaism's culture, and they are a part of what binds a lot of us together. Does the connection come because these stories happened just like the scriptures say they did? Maybe, but if they are myth, wouldn't we still feel connected to those stories?

Official Mormonism doesn't even allow for this possibility. There is no reason to have faith in myth. Mormons have faith in scripture, because God talks to prophets and prophets write down His dealings with men. God told Nephi to cut Laban's head off. If it were myth, surely a prophet would have told us by now.

[SeattleUte]

I have been meaning to start this discussion for some time now. I suspect it will evoke some strong opinions, but there are some fascinating issues to explore without having to carve out a battleground to defend. I read a book recently related to this topic that I would love to discuss, but before we get to that, let's start off with this essay:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpr...ure-for-reals/



I really like the last two paragraphs also.

Thoughts?

This observation is self-evident to any educated person. It's sad that to Mormons it seems profound. Of course the Bible is not a history book! I teach my children that the Bible is our Iliad, a book of myths with words, stories and imagery so powerful that they literally are part of the seed of our civilization. That is what we learn in any competent college or university.

On the other hand, the Bible is valuable as a general outline of the course of western civilization's history in the macro, up through the early Roman Empire, notwithstanding that there are, as in War and Peace, many fictional characters. And it is a genuine artifact of antiquity. That is more than any educated person could say about the Book of Mormon.

The last paragraph makes no sense to me. To me it's gibberish. Please explain. I think the last two paragraphs are the least interesting part of this "essay".

[Uncle Ted]

Official Mormonism doesn't even allow for this possibility. There is no reason to have faith in myth. Mormons have faith in scripture, because God talks to prophets and prophets write down His dealings with men. God told Nephi to cut Laban's head off. If it were myth, surely a prophet would have told us by now.

I have always thought it was interesting that the official title page of the BoM makes this disclaimer at the very end:

An now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-set of Christ.

So when Nephi told the story of cutting Laban's head off maybe he embellished a bit to make the story a little more interesting; kind of like Paul H. Dunn did with many of his stories that he told in conference. I love those stories.

[Moliere]

I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that the official position of the church is that scripture is historical, unless explicitly stated by someone who has authority to interpret scripture. This certainly applies to the BOM, and by extension the bible. The wiggle room a lot of us have is really around what we perceive as non-essential doctrine. And with the age of the earth, a world-wide flood, and other fantastical stories, you're not going to get much blowback if you profess faith in an allegorical interpretation of these events.

It certainly isn't a stretch and I'd say most Mormons consider the scriptures as historical and there is overwhelming evidence to this point.

However, this is the problem I see with the church. The only room for a member to have a connection to the church without a strong belief in all its claims is on the fringes. And this is because it's history is it's doctrine, and vice versa. There is no official reason for the church to exist if JS did not experience what he said he did, and he did not translate ancient records that described literal events. All of us, from Primary age on up, learned to develop a testimony of Jesus that was anchored by a faith in what Joseph Smith said. In effect, we have/had a testimony of the history of the church. And since we believe in the scriptures as long as they are translated correctly (and the official story is more or less that they have been, after JS got through with them), we have a testimony in the literalness of the scriptures. If you don't profess faith in literal scripture, there is some mental contortion to 'pass' the temple recommend interview.

The bolded point is really the issue at hand, at least when it comes to church history. As the history changes (or is better understood) some of the current elements of doctrine are difficult to support or maintain. The only way out is a relaxing of the cornerstones of the religion (one true church, PH power, living prophet speaking for God, etc.) which puts us into pretty much the same realm as other protestant religions.

I wish it didn't have to be that way. It would be great for many who derive power through myth and community to feel more attached to the church. There's a lot of cool stories (and a lot of terrible ones) in the scriptures. I think deep down, if most of us had to bet the farm, that we wouldn't want to do it on Samson's strength or talking asses. But they are Christianity's and Judaism's culture, and they are a part of what binds a lot of us together. Does the connection come because these stories happened just like the scriptures say they did? Maybe, but if they are myth, wouldn't we still feel connected to those stories?

Official Mormonism doesn't even allow for this possibility. There is no reason to have faith in myth. Mormons have faith in scripture, because God talks to prophets and prophets write down His dealings with men. God told Nephi to cut Laban's head off. If it were myth, surely a prophet would have told us by now.

I certainly don't agree with this. I think there is room in the church for people that don't believe in the historicity of the scriptures. When it comes to historicity I'm pretty much agnostic in that regard and I'm fully in the church. In fact, in almost all discussions I've had on historicity with TBMs we've usually ended up at a place that it doesn't really matter if there was an actual flood or if horses existed in America before Columbus arrived, what matters are the principles taught. I've even heard my parents (you won't find more devout Mormons than them) discount some of the historicity of the Joseph Smith story by saying "if it was all made up I really don't care because I know I'm a happier person having lived in the church and in this Gospel."

The biggest issue I've seen in the church is the way people think they are being perceived. A sinner hates coming to church because they feel like they are being judged. A YW leader wants to be released because she feels like she can't live up to the expectations of the parents. A prog-mo feels like he can't speak his mind because he will be considered the apostate of the ward. Little do people know that most Mormons are not incredibly judgmental...in fact most Mormons are loving and just happy you show up to church to be with them. Sometimes people just need to get over themselves.

As I've served in various callings I've found that the church (ward leaders) really don't care about if you believe the BoM is historically accurate. They just want to know if you'll show up and serve in some capacity to keep the ward running. Sure, if you start praying to Mother in Heaven you'll likely not be asked to be a YW leader, but chances are you'll be used in some capacity. It goes both ways though as I've seen lists of names of potential seminary teachers or YM leaders and the overly orthodox/correlated people are usually the first ones to be scratched off the list.

[Pheidippides]

Everybody's religious origin/scripture is bunk and myth. Except my own. Right?

I know somebody for whom the Noah essay was the last straw. For years she had hung around, dealing with everything on a metaphorical level (and openly so). But then she read what she perceived as a doubling down on historicity and then was, "nope, I'm gone." Not a reason in and of itself but it was the catalyst.

I know another family that adopted the Harry Potter series as an informal scriptural canon of sorts. Not that they believed it literally, or though all the principles were correct, but they saw the origin as just as valid as traditional scripture, the lessons good, and it much more interesting to read.

Not necessarily mainstream examples but I think they anecdotally show the power of myth and the problems with historicity.

[Northwestcoug]

It certainly isn't a stretch and I'd say most Mormons consider the scriptures as historical and there is overwhelming evidence to this point.



The bolded point is really the issue at hand, at least when it comes to church history. As the history changes (or is better understood) some of the current elements of doctrine are difficult to support or maintain. The only way out is a relaxing of the cornerstones of the religion (one true church, PH power, living prophet speaking for God, etc.) which puts us into pretty much the same realm as other protestant religions.



I certainly don't agree with this. I think there is room in the church for people that don't believe in the historicity of the scriptures. When it comes to historicity I'm pretty much agnostic in that regard and I'm fully in the church. In fact, in almost all discussions I've had on historicity with TBMs we've usually ended up at a place that it doesn't really matter if there was an actual flood or if horses existed in America before Columbus arrived, what matters are the principles taught. I've even heard my parents (you won't find more devout Mormons than them) discount some of the historicity of the Joseph Smith story by saying "if it was all made up I really don't care because I know I'm a happier person having lived in the church and in this Gospel."

The biggest issue I've seen in the church is the way people think they are being perceived. A sinner hates coming to church because they feel like they are being judged. A YW leader wants to be released because she feels like she can't live up to the expectations of the parents. A prog-mo feels like he can't speak his mind because he will be considered the apostate of the ward. Little do people know that most Mormons are not incredibly judgmental...in fact most Mormons are loving and just happy you show up to church to be with them. Sometimes people just need to get over themselves.

As I've served in various callings I've found that the church (ward leaders) really don't care about if you believe the BoM is historically accurate. They just want to know if you'll show up and serve in some capacity to keep the ward running. Sure, if you start praying to Mother in Heaven you'll likely not be asked to be a YW leader, but chances are you'll be used in some capacity. It goes both ways though as I've seen lists of names of potential seminary teachers or YM leaders and the overly orthodox/correlated people are usually the first ones to be scratched off the list.

I want to be clear. Yes, most local leaders are just happy people are showing up to contribute. I don't think I've been part of a ward that didn't want unorthodox members to serve. And I think a lot of them don't care about the level of orthodox belief. But I do think most leadership positions are kept from members who profess unorthodox beliefs, including those who don't openly believe in the historicity of scripture.

The problem really does rest with the general leadership of the church. There is a reason why unorthodox members perceive they are marginalized, and most of it is because the brethren place a premium on orthodoxy. And that is transmitted all the way down to the local leadership level. There is an official and accepted interpretation for all scripture, even for Primary. That is when we begin to learn that God sanctions killing of the innocent, because not believing in the literalness of those stories is not an official option.

[San Juan Sun]

I know another family that adopted the Harry Potter series as an informal scriptural canon of sorts. Not that they believed it literally, or though all the principles were correct, but they saw the origin as just as valid as traditional scripture, the lessons good, and it much more interesting to read.

Is this for real?

[SeattleUte]

Everybody's religious origin/scripture is bunk and myth. Except my own. Right?

I know somebody for whom the Noah essay was the last straw. For years she had hung around, dealing with everything on a metaphorical level (and openly so). But then she read what she perceived as a doubling down on historicity and then was, "nope, I'm gone." Not a reason in and of itself but it was the catalyst.

I know another family that adopted the Harry Potter series as an informal scriptural canon of sorts. Not that they believed it literally, or though all the principles were correct, but they saw the origin as just as valid as traditional scripture, the lessons good, and it much more interesting to read.

Not necessarily mainstream examples but I think they anecdotally show the power of myth and the problems with historicity.

Here is my and many other Americans' founding scripture.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/gettyb.asp

[San Juan Sun]

Here is my and many other Americans' founding scripture.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/gettyb.asp

It doesn't say anything about kindness.

[Moliere]

Everybody's religious origin/scripture is bunk and myth. Except my own. Right?

I know somebody for whom the Noah essay was the last straw. For years she had hung around, dealing with everything on a metaphorical level (and openly so). But then she read what she perceived as a doubling down on historicity and then was, "nope, I'm gone." Not a reason in and of itself but it was the catalyst.

I know another family that adopted the Harry Potter series as an informal scriptural canon of sorts. Not that they believed it literally, or though all the principles were correct, but they saw the origin as just as valid as traditional scripture, the lessons good, and it much more interesting to read.

Not necessarily mainstream examples but I think they anecdotally show the power of myth and the problems with historicity.

You've pointed out my current issues....or maybe not issues but thoughts. While I don't really care if the BoM is historically accurate and I'm certain little of the Bible is historically accurate, it's difficult for me to call those scripture and not also call other literary works I love as scripture as well. Makes me wonder where TSM falls on this spectrum given his propensity to cite very diverse literary works. I'd go so far as to call books like Les Mis as scripture given its ability to teach morals and inspire. I guess the official canon just holds a special place given its breadth of influence over western society as a whole.

Maybe this is why I love to hear personal stories of how the Gospel has touched the lives of individuals. In a way, all our stories are scripture as long as they inspire and/or teach.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The last paragraph makes no sense to me. To me it's gibberish. Please explain. I think the last two paragraphs are the least interesting part of this "essay".

That is the part where he essentially says, "In spite of this, scripture has tremendous value because...".

It is really sad that you can't understand that part.

[Pheidippides]

Is this for real?

Yes. It's not a formal designation; more filling the void where BOM study used to be.

[taekwondave]

You know, this thread just helped me realize something about myself in terms I hadn't really considered before. I'm simply not a literalist. That's all it comes down to. I "believe" in God, but I don't think he really exists outside my own psyche. I "believe" in the scriptures, but their truthfulness to me doesn't reside in their historical accuracy any more than it does, as was mentioned above, for Harry Potter or any other work of fiction (although recently I prefer Shakespeare for my daily "scripture" study).

My recent discomfort with my religion is found there--in the literalist mindset of its average member and average leader. That's the simple reason my wife and I no longer feel comfortable going to church; people there think all this stuff really happened and we don't. That's all. I could take Mormonism's revised history as non-literal and be quite uplifted by it, just as I can take the probably-revised story of Jesus, and the obviously-revised old testament and be uplifted by them.

But I really don't feel comfortable saying so in a church setting because I know it's SUCH a minority position. And even if I DID feel comfortable saying so, I still feel so drowned out by the chorus of other voices that think things have to be literal in order to be true that it becomes a constant wrestling match with my own cognitive dissonance and it makes it impossible to enjoy myself. And why go to church if you can't enjoy yourself?

That's really the only reason I can't get myself to go to church anymore. I love people and I love Mormon people, but at church they recite a view that frustrates me so much I just find it better to stay home rather than subject myself to a constant exercise in patience.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

I know a family that studies John Grisham, their daughter Juliet and mine became good friends. Eventually we had to end the friendship because the girls were getting into trouble pretending they were in a make believe land called Equalia, with gnomes and unicorns and a magic castle. The girls ran away to the forest where they found an abandoned seafood restaurant that would be their kingdom. The local bullies found them and were going to hurt the girls badly, but one of the bullies named Kearney started to believe in Equalia and let them go.