The June 1

[creekster]

Whoa. You are going to write off all the other stories, but stick with the most problematic one of all due to narrative consistency? (BTW, there are plenty of valid reasons to apply a different lens to OT stories written pre-800 BC - for starters, those stories were all passed down via oral tradition for centuries before being written down).

As you probably know, the stories in Genesis exhibit a nice cohesiveness.

Creation - The gods create man in their own image. Man eats fruit becoming as the gods. "Hey, these people we created are too much like us, let's kick them out of the garden and make life hard on them."

Flood - Man starts mating with angels and killing and doing all kinds of evil things. "Whoa, these humans are out of control again. Let's wipe them out and start over."

Tower - Man becomes wealthy and powerful and tries to build a tower to heaven. "Darn it, these humans are at it again. Let's mess up their languages and scatter them over the earth."

Really cool consistency in the story line. Genesis is awesome, but there is no way it is literal history. I can make that conclusion and still feel great about my religion, thank you very much.

You seem to be willfully ignoring the point. I didn't say for narrative consistency. I said that apart from some likely outliers there is no religiously sustainable basis to pick which parts of the OT you decide are true. I assure you I am the last person to assert that Genesis is literal history in all or even many respects. And I certainly agree it is a mishmash of ideas and sources, but the genocidal notions, as they have been characterized here, are central to the very point of the gospel. Moreover, none of the examples you add in this post refer or relate to this issue. You may excuse the Tower of Babel, or the full world flood, or the creation story as mere myth; you may parse out inconsistencies based on the J, P and E sources; but the central theme of the OT is the covenant of the Hebrews with God and of their coming to grips with this relationship. The notion of the covenant is expressed and manifested in many practical ways. The Hebrews' God is more powerful, he is more intelligent and he is wiser and he blesses and favors his people, his covenant people, in very direct ways. As a result he commands them to kill the Canaanites, the Moabites and others in order to prepare a place for them to live and to protect and preserve the purity of the covenant relationship and he even becomes angry when they do not fully and completely comply. These directives are found throughout the OT, not just in Genesis. So you can selectively choose some of the more obviously fantastic stories to discount, if you choose, but the very central nature of the covenant and the instructions surrounding it make it impossible to so blithely discard it without placing yourself above the gospel narrative in ALL respects.

[Northwestcoug]

You seem to be willfully ignoring the point. I didn't say for narrative consistency. I said that apart from some likely outliers there is no religiously sustainable basis to pick which parts of the OT you decide are true. I assure you I am the last person to assert that Genesis is literal history in all or even many respects. And I certainly agree it is a mishmash of ideas and sources, but the genocidal notions, as they have been characterized here, are central to the very point of the gospel. Moreover, none of the examples you add in this post refer or relate to this issue. You may excuse the Tower of Babel, or the full world flood, or the creation story as mere myth; you may parse out inconsistencies based on the J, P and E sources; but the central theme of the OT is the covenant of the Hebrews with God and of their coming to grips with this relationship. The notion of the covenant is expressed and manifested in many practical ways. The Hebrews' God is more powerful, he is more intelligent and he is wiser and he blesses and favors his people, his covenant people, in very direct ways. As a result he commands them to kill the Canaanites, the Moabites and others in order to prepare a place for them to live and to protect and preserve the purity of the covenant relationship and he even becomes angry when they do not fully and completely comply. These directives are found throughout the OT, not just in Genesis. So you can selectively choose some of the more obviously fantastic stories to discount, if you choose, but the very central nature of the covenant and the instructions surrounding it make it impossible to so blithely discard it without placing yourself above the gospel narrative in ALL respects.

I never thought of it this way, but it's persuasive. It seems like we are 'proof-texting' the bible to place more weight in a loving merciful god than in a vengeful one.

[Pheidippides]

Maybe. But I'll also say COPB is the most siloed organization I've ever been around. I wouldn't put it past them.

Is that by design or by happenstance? Usually I would say that's a symptom of a dysfunctional corporate culture, but I think the church defies norms (corporately) in a number of ways.

[FMCoug]

Is that by design or by happenstance? Usually I would say that's a symptom of a dysfunctional corporate culture, but I think the church defies norms (corporately) in a number of ways.

Can I answer yes to both? Maybe 80% dysfunction 20% design. As you can imagine, the organizational politics there are off the hook. Combine that with passive aggressive Mormon culture where nobody actually says what they mean and you get written up for causing contention and you've got a recipe for corporate dysfunction to the Nth degree.

EDIT: as you can imagine, nepotism is off the hook too.

[Pheidippides]

Can I answer yes to both? Maybe 80% dysfunction 20% design. As you can imagine, the organizational politics there are off the hook. Combine that with passive aggressive Mormon culture where nobody actually says what they mean and you get written up for causing contention and you've got a recipe for corporate dysfunction to the Nth degree.

EDIT: as you can imagine, nepotism is off the hook too.

Quinn has a whole chapter on nepotism in his second Mormon Hierarchy book. And in an appendix he lays out all of the connections (current as of 95, I think).

[Jeff Lebowski]

You seem to be willfully ignoring the point. I didn't say for narrative consistency. I said that apart from some likely outliers there is no religiously sustainable basis to pick which parts of the OT you decide are true. I assure you I am the last person to assert that Genesis is literal history in all or even many respects. And I certainly agree it is a mishmash of ideas and sources, but the genocidal notions, as they have been characterized here, are central to the very point of the gospel. Moreover, none of the examples you add in this post refer or relate to this issue. You may excuse the Tower of Babel, or the full world flood, or the creation story as mere myth; you may parse out inconsistencies based on the J, P and E sources; but the central theme of the OT is the covenant of the Hebrews with God and of their coming to grips with this relationship. The notion of the covenant is expressed and manifested in many practical ways. The Hebrews' God is more powerful, he is more intelligent and he is wiser and he blesses and favors his people, his covenant people, in very direct ways. As a result he commands them to kill the Canaanites, the Moabites and others in order to prepare a place for them to live and to protect and preserve the purity of the covenant relationship and he even becomes angry when they do not fully and completely comply. These directives are found throughout the OT, not just in Genesis. So you can selectively choose some of the more obviously fantastic stories to discount, if you choose, but the very central nature of the covenant and the instructions surrounding it make it impossible to so blithely discard it without placing yourself above the gospel narrative in ALL respects.

I am not following you. You say this:

...apart from some likely outliers there is no religiously sustainable basis to pick which parts of the OT you decide are true.

And then in the very next sentence you say this:

I assure you I am the last person to assert that Genesis is literal history in all or even many respects.

Is this some kind of lawyer trick?

I certainly agree with you that "Our god is greater than the other gods" is a central theme in the OT. Of course, that is a central theme for just about any ancient culture. Or put another way, "We wiped out your people, so this is proof that god is on our side."

If genocide is so central to the Christian covenant, it seems rather odd that we don't stress it more in the modern church. Go figure.

[Pheidippides]

KUTV reporting that Whitney Clayton and M Russell Ballard appear to the driving forces behind this: http://m.kutv.com/article?id=5426596

Edit: Clayton is the guy who gave the "Watch and Learn" talk a few conferences back.

[creekster]

I am not following you. You say this:



And then in the very next sentence you say this:



Is this some kind of lawyer trick?

I certainly agree with you that "Our god is greater than the other gods" is a central theme in the OT. Of course, that is a central theme for just about any ancient culture. Or put another way, "We wiped out your people, so this is proof that god is on our side."

If genocide is so central to the Christian covenant, it seems rather odd that we don't stress it more in the modern church. Go figure.

I don't know what you don't understand. The outliers are pretty easy to isolate, and they are pretty easy to separate from the Gospel narrative (the she bear? The talking ass? pretty easy to see how those are not central to the theme). And as tricks go, trying to re-cast my statement as suggesting the genocide is part of the covenant is not a very good one. I said no such thing. But God very clearly ordered genocide multiple times in the OT in order to support the covenant and the covenant peoples. These were not instances of a bizarre story grafted on to the larger narrative, or of an exception to the types of stories being told. Instead, they were a part of the advancement of the covenant peoples and fulfillment of God's commitment to the covenant. (one might ague that genocide is an example of an exaggeration, such as a world wide flood as opposed to a more likely localized mediterranean basin event, for example. But in doing so you are still left with the fact that God promises blessings in return for killing, whether it is genocide or not.)

As far as not stressing it, I gather you haven't spent much time reading the correlated SS materials for the OT? Lots of references to the ordered genocide. Plus, we seem to have lost sight of the point of this discussion: You disagreed with Eddie's reference to genocide as an example of God's inconvenient positions. But the fact is that the story of genocide is integral to the covenant as presented in the OT. (not part of the covenant, in case you are confused by my comment again, but integral to its fulfillment by God). To disregard it as an outlier is to overturn any binding nature of any of the principles in the OT except those which pass your own personal inspection for reasons of preference and convenience.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't know what you don't understand. The outliers are pretty easy to isolate, and they are pretty easy to separate from the Gospel narrative (the she bear? The talking ass? pretty easy to see how those are not central to the theme). And as tricks go, trying to re-cast my statement as suggesting the genocide is part of the covenant is not a very good one. I said no such thing. But God very clearly ordered genocide multiple times in the OT in order to support the covenant and the covenant peoples. These were not instances of a bizarre story grafted on to the larger narrative, or of an exception to the types of stories being told. Instead, they were a part of the advancement of the covenant peoples and fulfillment of God's commitment to the covenant. (one might ague that genocide is an example of an exaggeration, such as a world wide flood as opposed to a more likely localized mediterranean basin event, for example. But in doing so you are still left with the fact that God promises blessings in return for killing, whether it is genocide or not.)

As far as not stressing it, I gather you haven't spent much time reading the correlated SS materials for the OT? Lots of references to the ordered genocide. Plus, we seem to have lost sight of the point of this discussion: You disagreed with Eddie's reference to genocide as an example of God's inconvenient positions. But the fact is that the story of genocide is integral to the covenant as presented in the OT. (not part of the covenant, in case you are confused by my comment again, but integral to its fulfillment by God). To disregard it as an outlier is to overturn any binding nature of any of the principles in the OT except those which pass your own personal inspection for reasons of preference and convenience.

There are also countless references to the creation and to the flood. And yet you have no problem regarding those stories as ahistorical. Very odd.

Yes, there is no doubt that the genocide stories came to be woven into the religious/cultural narrative of the Hebrew people and were passed down for generations. That doesn't make it any more historical than the story of the great flood.

[creekster]

There are also countless references to the creation and to the flood. And yet you have no problem regarding those stories as ahistorical. Very odd.

Yes, there is no doubt that the genocide stories came to be woven into the religious/cultural narrative of the Hebrew people and were passed down for generations. That doesn't make it any more historical than the story of the great flood.

I think you are choosing to ignore what I am saying. Up to you. I addressed these arguments several times. I never said it was historical, I said it was scriptural. If historical is the basis upon which you choose to believe the scriptures or gospel principles, then your belief system is pretty thin.

[DrumNFeather]

KUTV reporting that Whitney Clayton and M Russell Ballard appear to the driving forces behind this: http://m.kutv.com/article?id=5426596

Edit: Clayton is the guy who gave the "Watch and Learn" talk a few conferences back.

Interesting that Ballard isn't quoted in this report. I'm a little surprised that Kutv is running with this with so little concrete information. Then again, it's the biggest story in Utah right now and any edge you can get I suppose you take.

[Tex]

KUTV reporting that Whitney Clayton and M Russell Ballard appear to the driving forces behind this: http://m.kutv.com/article?id=5426596

Edit: Clayton is the guy who gave the "Watch and Learn" talk a few conferences back.

"Driving force" is a strange way to characterize this:

Sources say that on May 17 Elder M. Russell Ballard and Elder Whitney Clayton were in the area for a training meeting. During that meeting, the local church leaders asked Elder Clayton what should be done about the Ordain Women group. Clayton reportedly said that public advocacy is an act of apostasy.

[Pheidippides]

Interesting that Ballard isn't quoted in this report. I'm a little surprised that Kutv is running with this with so little concrete information. Then again, it's the biggest story in Utah right now and any edge you can get I suppose you take.

That surprised me too. The video did have more than the text, citing unnamed sources from the VA meeting. Not a ton to go on though. Ballard is not the one I would have expected, if true.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think you are choosing to ignore what I am saying. Up to you. I addressed these arguments several times. I never said it was historical, I said it was scriptural. If historical is the basis upon which you choose to believe the scriptures or gospel principles, then your belief system is pretty thin.

Holy cow, I am certainly not arguing that something has to be historical to be valuable. But this entire argument started out as a discussion of the application of ancient scriptural stories to modern-day moral reasoning. I have simply argued that I don't believe some of these ancient stories should be used as a doctrinal/scriptural justification for things like discrimination or genocide.

BTW, I am puzzled why making judgments about my belief system is part of your argument.

[DrumNFeather]

That surprise me too. The video did have more than the text, citing unnamed sources from the VA meeting. Not a ton to go on though. Ballard is not the one I would have expected, if true.

I've got to know someone that attended that meeting...I should do some digging.