Scriptural Historicity

[PaloAltoCougar]

I agree but I also wonder what percentage of those who think the scriptures are literally accurate reach that conclusion after having thought about it, as opposed to simply starting from that premise as children and never really considering the alternative? As you mentioned in your previous post, it doesn't take a whole lot of contemplation to come to the conclusion that Jonah probably wasn't living in a whale's belly for a period of time.

I enjoy teaching the Jonah story and dismiss its historicity at the outset. This usually results in one or more in the class bringing up examples of Russian sailors or whoever being found alive after having spent three days or so inside a whale, so it MUST have happened. Never mind that the sailor was horribly disfigured from the gastric juices, etc. The biblical Jonah story is filled with some great symbols and meaning, including personal triumph over one's perceived weaknesses, and overcoming death after three days. Literal interpretation is often an enemy of understanding and full appreciation.

[Topper]

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.

This is a very real observation. As creekster points out, once you make room for non-literal aspects of scripture, it all becomes suspect. Once, it's all suspect, it's hard to pin anything upon its authority.

I enjoy the community because most of the members are good people. I see people lending a hand to their neighbors. Always a good thing. Inspiring a community to be honest, to study hard, to earn a good living and to dedicate one's life for a higher purpose is commendable.

The conflict comes from hearing many persons taking all of the "scripture" literally. In one sense, it doesn't really matter, or at least most of the time. However, when one adopts the philosophy that most of the "scripture" is a tradition of those who believe they were touched by the spirit of the Almighty, the stories are interesting if used in the hands of a gifted teacher. Otherwise, they become dry and uninteresting. The routine of religion is comforting for some. It may at times be comforting, but it is also quite uninviting as well. Because the content is suspect, the delivery is important.

[Sullyute]

This is a rather unique book. It is written as an introduction to the documentary hypothesis (DH) and textual criticism for an LDS audience. It is extremely accessible and is a pleasure to read. Here are some of the highlights/main points from the book.

1 - Basic overview of DH. Religious tradition has Moses as the author of the first five books of the OT (the pentateuch). However, there many, many reasons that this is not the case (more than I can adequately cover in a review). Rather, the books appear to have been authored primarily by four different sources, labeled J, P, E, and D. This can be seen in the language/verbiage used (J always used Yahweh and P always used Elohim in reference to God), the parts of the story that were emphasized, etc. Furthermore, for many of the main stories (creation, flood, deliverance from egypt) a careful reading of the text shows that multiple accounts of the same story are woven into one. This is most obvious in the creation account, which clearly has two stories embedded in one. At some point, someone took multiple accounts written by the different sources and combined them into a single account. It is really fascinating to look at this in detail and read the main stories where the different threads have been separated. Each tells the story with a consistent theme and theological viewpoint. Furthermore, the P (priestly) account tends to downplay Moses’s role and emphasize Aaron’s role, because Aaron was from the priestly class.

2 - Dating the text. Scholars can examine ancient texts and fairly accurately pinpoint when they were written based on the words that are used (it is possible to track when certain words came into usage) and by reference (either explicit or implicit) to historical events. Using this analysis, it appears that the Pentateuch was written around 800 BC. There are other reasons this makes sense. This corresponds to the rise of the Assyrian empire. The Assyrians used writing to track information and issue documents to govern conquered territories. Prior to this time, there was no written form of Hebrew; everything was transmitted orally. This is one reason you never see a reference to a written record in the early part of the OT. The Assyrians exposed them to a scribal tradition so they came up with a written version of Hebrew and then started writing down their oral traditions. Most likely there were various oral narratives (J-P-E-D) that were written down and then combined into a single record.

All in all, a fascinating book. I can’t recommend it highly enough. This is a challenging topic to explore for faithful LDS but Bokovoy strikes a nice balance.

It sounds like the first two portions of the book are just a rehash of Who Wrote the Bible? by Friedman. How does he tie it into believing mormonism?

[TripletDaddy]

I enjoy teaching the Jonah story and dismiss its historicity at the outset. This usually results in one or more in the class bringing up examples of Russian sailors or whoever being found alive after having spent three days or so inside a whale, so it MUST have happened. Never mind that the sailor was horribly disfigured from the gastric juices, etc. The biblical Jonah story is filled with some great symbols and meaning, including personal triumph over one's perceived weaknesses, and overcoming death after three days. Literal interpretation is often an enemy of understanding and full appreciation.

I had a similar exchange with a literalist who was offended by my suggestion that Ammon may not have actually cut off all of those arms and, if he hadnt, what difference would it make anyway? This guy seemed unable or unwilling to accept the possibility of allegory over literalism.

I would be more interested in sunday school if lessons more frequently made reference to gastric juices and horrible disfigurement.

[myboynoah]

I had a similar exchange with a literalist who was offended by my suggestion that Ammon may not have actually cut off all of those arms and, if he hadnt, what difference would it make anyway? This guy seemed unable or unwilling to accept the possibility of allegory over literalism.

I would be more interested in sunday school if lessons more frequently made reference to gastric juices and horrible disfigurement.

But you'd balk at the pictures.

If people want literal, I say give 'em literal.

[Topper]

I had a similar exchange with a literalist who was offended by my suggestion that Ammon may not have actually cut off all of those arms and, if he hadnt, what difference would it make anyway? This guy seemed unable or unwilling to accept the possibility of allegory over literalism.

I would be more interested in sunday school if lessons more frequently made reference to gastric juices and horrible disfigurement.

Gastric juices leading to disfigurement would certainly capture my attention. Was Jonah homely and disfigured?

[Jeff Lebowski]

It sounds like the first two portions of the book are just a rehash of Who Wrote the Bible? by Friedman. How does he tie it into believing mormonism?

It is difficult to describe, but he goes to great lengths to discuss implications for mormonism.

I can't give away all the book spoilers! Then I would have to ban myself.

[creekster]

I would be more interested in sunday school if lessons more frequently made reference to gastric juices and horrible disfigurement.

You might have enjoyed our ss last week where we discussed the guy in judges who buried his cubit long dagger so deeply into the fat kings bowels that it was list and could not be removed. This leads to the 'dirt' coming out. Then the assailant (who is the hero btw) leaps from a window but the dying kings servants don't try to help him because they think he "uncovereth his feet" which phrase should not be taken literally.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Maybe a little too cynical, but on topic:

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php...-in-the-bible/

Do you ever read the bits of scripture that are excluded from our Sunday School lesson manuals?

...

These are complicated, problematic stories. As histories, they are bare outlines, with references to practices, peoples and cultures that foreign to us. But we can see cause and effect, we can even see the same stories playing out today. But it is so much easier to skip over them than it is to attempt to understand or justify them. So we skip over these strange and hard parts.

[Moliere]

What Noah essay?

I'm guessing it's either this one: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/t...babel?lang=eng

or the one article that was kind of a quasi-LDS magazine where the guy talked about kangaroos being transported by Angel Airlines back to Australia. Edit: here's the link: http://www.ldsmag.com/article/1/14059

[Topper]

It is difficult to describe, but he goes to great lengths to discuss implications for mormonism.

I can't give away all the book spoilers! Then I would have to ban myself.

Live dangerously.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Live dangerously.

Too risky. I have been known to act arbitrarily as an admin.

[Topper]

Too risky. I have been known to act arbitrarily as an admin.

I am curious how he makes the leap and would prefer not to have to buy the book, so trailers are much appreciated.

[Northwestcoug]

I'm guessing it's either this one: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/t...babel?lang=eng

or the one article that was kind of a quasi-LDS magazine where the guy talked about kangaroos being transported by Angel Airlines back to Australia. Edit: here's the link: http://www.ldsmag.com/article/1/14059

I think it might be this one:

https://www.lds.org/topics/noah?lang...+and+the+flood

It seemed recent, and confirmed a literal interpretation of a whole-earth flood. Also, it tried to reconcile an angry murderous God with a loving HF...

[TripletDaddy]

But you'd balk at the pictures.

If people want literal, I say give 'em literal.

Sounds good to me!