We are often told we should read our scriptures, but we aren’t told how to read them. Since most people are literate, but have never been taught how to read, it’s a crapshoot how effective their study is. We learn about reading scriptures as Primary children, but our methods often fail to transcend that approach.
From the Primary song Scripture Power, we learn why kids should be excited to read scripture, and that reason is to get power!
1. Because I want to be like the Savior, and I can,I’m reading His instructions, I’m following His plan.Because I want the power His word will give to me,I’m changing how I live, I’m changing what I’ll be.
2. I’ll find the sword of truth in each scripture that I learn.I’ll take the shield of faith from these pages that I turn.I’ll wear each vital part of the armor of the Lord,And fight my daily battles, and win a great reward.
[Chorus]Scripture power keeps me safe from sin.Scripture power is the power to win.Scripture power! Ev’ryday I needThe power that I get each time I read.
According to this popular children’s song [1], the scriptures are an instruction manual for life, a protection from sin, a weapon to use to fight battles and win them [2], and a commodity to win rewards [3]. I suppose depending on which of these approaches you take, you’ll read them differently.
Christian Harrison wrote an excellent blog post this weekend about various ways to believe in the Book of Mormon. He described three different spectra of belief paradigms. These 3 paradigms are also helpful as ways to read the text, not just how to believe. As reading methods, they apply to all scripture, not just the Book of Mormon.
Christian’s post references Article of Faith 8:
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
Although the caveat about correct translation is a notable absent qualifier for belief in the Book of Mormon, it’s still a valuable addition to consider given the record’s own claims. It’s been abridged, parts have been lost, parts were translated from an unknown language (as well as all of it), the people it records are a “fallen people,” it’s had various authors, some of whom insert themselves into the text they are abridging. That’s to say nothing of the modern translation techniques Joseph Smith describes using which were complex and stressful, to say the least. So there’s plenty of room for even the most faithful believer to read scripture more carefully, not merely more often. More of the same approach yields the same result.
Ancient vs. Modern. You can read any scripture in context as something from another culture and time (anciently) or you can liken scripture unto yourself (what’s called a premodern approach, technically). Premodern scripture reading has a few characteristics:
- A tendency to read all scripture as one book with one author: God.
- Overlooking the context of scripture: the viewpoints and experiences of various authors, the cultures and times and world events that form the backdrop.
- An assumption that the meaning of scripture is obvious. This often comes with a lack of awareness of alternate interpretations or how one’s own exposure to a specific flavor of preaching has shaped the meaning that seems so apparent.
Many who are most vociferously defensive about scripture’s ancient origins take the most non-ancient approach to reading it by ignoring the differences of culture that are a necessary part of all historical events. From an excellent article by Ken Schenck on the different approaches readers take:
The pre-modern reader of the Bible hears the voice of God in its words. He or she does not realize that the meaning they hear is unrelated to the Bible’s original meaning, but it is God’s authoritative voice to them through whatever version or language they may be reading. The one who tries to read the Bible in the light of its original meaning does better and is an important check on the excesses of pre-modern interpretation, a fixed point to keep the pre-modern from bungee jumping to their death. But knowing what the Bible meant originally does not mean that we know how to apply it appropriately today. A mechanism of appropriation is needed, and the text itself does not furnish us with one.
Bear in mind that those who use a pre-modern approach are in good company. So did the Apostle Paul, and the Book of Mormon authors likewise do so, applying their own “modern” context on Old Testament scripture.
We (as did they) believe that scripture is written for us today, for our benefit, that it is relevant. But that ability to remain useful doesn’t mean it wasn’t originally written for someone else in a different time and place that differs greatly from our own. Ignoring the original context means we miss the most obvious meaning of scripture to manufacture one that suits our personal situation. We become Bible dippers, practicing bibiomancy.
bible dip. ask the bible a question close your eyes open to a random page and put your finger on a word without looking, and whatever that word is has something to do with the answer to your question (Urban dictionary)
Reading scripture as ancient puts us on our guard that this is a foreign land where the rules differ, but entering a foreign land makes our own assumptions more clear to us; it can lay our biases bare for our examination. Reading scripture as ancient can also teach us to humanize and empathize with those people in it, but at the same time reveals their completely foreign values and assumptions. But only if we really look at the foreign land for what it is. If we don’t, we never leave our comfort zone long enough to be changed by the experience. We assume the past is like the present. It’s not.Factual vs. Fictional. You can assume the stories in scripture are all literal events or you can read them purely allegorically as a type of Christ or to teach a lesson or sometimes just as campfire stories to exaggerate feats of battle (Ammon & the arms!). Reading them allegorically is useful, but reading them literally creates empathy for the actors in the stories, and forces you to consider motives and feelings.
Some scripture stories seem obviously fictional. I was speaking with a Hindu colleague a few years ago about how literally people took scripture. He surprised me when he said that although he was a somewhat more figurative believer, his parents took Hindu scripture and beliefs very literally, to the point that they believed that there was a monkey god who was mischievous, they believed that Ganesh had the head of an elephant, and that when it came to creation, it was in fact turtles all the way down, churning the sea of milk. For a westerner like me, the ideas of Hinduism seemed fantastical, obviously allegorical, but it dawned on me that their views as non-believers of Christian claims might sound similarly unfamiliar and fantastical.
Some of the stories in the Bible have a mythical quality to them rather than a factual quality, and indeed, historical records sometimes show that the stories are embellished. Because human beings are subjective, any story we tell will be a mix of fact and fiction, whether we intend to be faithful reporters or not. We aren’t capable of true objectivity. Some stories (Balaam’s ass) are more fantastical than others. They seem not to intend to be telling factual events. Other stories are more enigmatic in terms of how factual they are.
In many cases, scripture stories are a later retelling. They are almost never written by their principles, almost always surfacing generations or centuries later. Eve didn’t write the book of Genesis. If Moses wrote the book of Exodus, we have no copies from his time frame. It is more likely that these stories were first an oral tradition and only later committed to writing. Even the earliest books of the New Testament were written around A.D. 70, a long time after Christ’s earthly ministry.
It’s like a book being written today about JFK. We have developed opinions, stories, and theories about JFK. He’s no longer just who he was. We don’t and can’t know the man, not really. Of course, that’s partly true for any person at any time. More properly I could say we cannot in 2016 know who JFK really was in 1962 or what his words meant to people then because we don’t live in 1962. To us, he is revered and we’ve heard of him our whole lives. He’s no longer what he was.
Another type of reading is reader-response criticism. This method is most interested in understanding how people receive(d) the text, both the original audience, and various modern audiences. This approach sometimes means we deliberately pull a text out of its own time and apply modern filters, but we do it knowingly rather than ignorantly (as a pre-modern reader does). A feminist reading of scripture is one such example. Either way, the focus is not on what the author intended or the substance of the text, but on our response as readers. King Benjamin’s speech (as well as several other parts of the Book of Mormon) is tailor-made for reader-response criticism because we are told how people responded to what was said. This isn’t always the case in scripture, but when it happens, it reminds us to evaluate the times we aren’t told how people responded. Why aren’t we told? Was it unfavorable? He that hath ears to hear, indeed.
Inspired vs. Uninspired. All this talk of context and history brings us back to the core question. You can read scripture as uninspired, an artifact of a time and place only, an example of church leaders trying to control or influence a backsliding people, or you can imagine different levels of inspiration that run the gamut from good ideas to burning bush / finger of God revelation. Hearing the human narrators is the first step to appreciating the “uninspired” biases and filters that overlay or underlay the inspired portions. Within Mormonism, Joseph Smith points the way to accepting this in the 8th Article of Faith, something we as Mormons quote often when we want to dismiss a scripture that doesn’t make sense to us. Some other denominations consider all scripture to have been penned by God; they assume the Bible to be more inspired than we allow. This leads to some very tortured logic to redeem the spiritual value of the Song of Solomon.
And yet, what is the point of scripture if not to lead us to a richer spiritual life, to inspire us? Is what inspires us therefore inspired? Or can we be inspired (in a bibliomantic sense) by a well-timed billboard or TV commercial? Does that mean the billboard was inspired? Often when I hear that individuals consider the Book of Mormon to be modern but inspired, they mean that it inspires them; therefore, it is inspired. When God is an active participant in our lives, anything can be a source for inspiration or divine communication. As one commenter on Christian’s post put it:
I also see the BoM as inspired, but not historical. For me, there are too many arguments/evidence for it being modern and none for it being ancient other than belief. But very clearly it draws people to Christ and therefore it must come from Christ.
Another commenter goes further than this in claiming it is inspired or revelatory:
I believe the Book of Mormon is inspired despite not being an a pseudepigraphical and anachronistic text. While I understand that the BOM claims to be ancient, I reject that claim without rejecting the inspired revelatory nature by which the text came to be.
To some inspired means revealed by God and refers to the means by which it was brought about. To others it means that it is aligned with God’s will because of its outcomes: the ends justify the means, what inspires is inspired.
There are certainly parts of scripture that are less inspired (genocide, racism, sexism, violence) and parts that are more inspired. Evaluating scripture in its historical context and understanding its human authors is helpful in sussing this out. The ultimate question is how much is human and how much divine, which is also one of the oldest questions of Christianity about Jesus. Do we believe he was mostly a divine being who became human or a human being who became divine? Which predominated? Of course, we can’t know.
Likewise with scripture we can’t completely disentangle that which is divine from that which is human. Perhaps ultimately the human is divine or is becoming divine. Scripture is a byproduct of the human struggle to comprehend the divine. If we don’t recognize that we are engaged in that struggle (the human aspect) when we read it, we will in large part miss the point.
- Is it more correct to say that the Book of Mormon is true (the word of God) as far as it is translated correctly?
- Do you think we are encouraged toward a pre-modern reading of scripture? Is there value in other approaches? What is your preferred approach to scripture reading?
- Are there some stories in scripture that you think are fictional that others consider to be factual? Does a story being fictional render it meaningless to you?
- What does inspired mean to you? What qualifies as inspired? Is all scripture inspired?
Discuss.
[1] that sounds nearly identical to the Dunkin Donuts jingle. Note that the jingle was from 1980, and the Primary song is from 1987. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS4RvFT4kaI
[2] I can hear the Apostle Paul saying “God Forbid!” in the background.
[3] Hello, prosperity gospel!
Very informative post Hawkgrrrl. I think modern historical scholarship can do a lot to bring the scriptures to life. But we must also remember that ancient scriptures are proof-texts of proof-texts of proof-texts. If we refuse to proof-text them in our day, we miss a huge dimension of the life and vitality of the scriptural tradition. And it is arrogant to assume that we can possibly view the scriptures completely objectively anyway. History is not an exact science. It constantly changes as we reinterpret it and try to understand it.
I also disagree that literal readings create more empathy. Do I feel any less empathy for Romeo and Juliet than I do for Anthony and Cleopatra, even though I know that one of the stories is based on literal history? The Greek statesman Solon said, “Myth is not about something that never happened. It is about something that happens over and over again.”
Non-literal readings free us up to feel MORE empathy, because the story becomes an allegory for our own life, rather than some dull historical fact. If Adam and Eve are allegories for our own spiritual journey, they are with us constantly, and we feel all the more acutely what it means to fall from the paradise of our own childhood innocence.
But if Adam and Eve understood literally, they become mere instruments used to explain the mechanics of the plan of salvation: why there was a fall, why there needs to be an atonement. Literal figures answer questions and clarify the realities of existence. But mythical figures ask questions and set the soul on a journey of spiritual discovery.
Interesting. This is what got me to start deconstruction of the text of the Book of Mormon and has made for a richer experience.
The same for the genocide stories in the Bible when we know the genocides did not actually happen.
Certain aspects of scripture need to be taken literal and historical. The BoM for example needs to be taken as historical. The main events such as Lehi leaving Jerusalem and sailing to the Americas is just one of many that has to be taken literally or you might as well throw out the BoM and our entire religion for that matter as a complete fabrication.
Steve, I don’t subscribe to the idea that the biblical genocides didn’t happen. I think, for example, there is pretty good evidence of mass death in Jericho, and Qumran.
Rob:
As an inactive member of the church, I couldn’t disagree more with you. The historicity of scripture, any scripture, is besides the point. Scriptural stories teach spiritual truths and use symbolic language. Scriptures are mythic narratives (not lies but using that term in its highest sense), and they teach in symbols, metaphor, and allegory. Thinking literally that there is a Lehi leaving Jerusalem or that there is a garden with a talking snake misses the greater spiritual truths that go far past a surface-level of understanding of the text.
I get really annoyed at the fundamentalists on both sides of the historicity debate. Literalist Mormons (“it’s all true or it’s nothing”) are no better than those who say it is all lies. They are both blind. They mistake the finger pointing to the moon and think it’s the finger that is important. See past the surface level and you will find something much deeper that has nothing to do with history.
I personally find Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Journey model and C. G. Jung’s theory of archetypes to be one of the best ways to understand any scriptural story. They are not the only way but are the most gratifying and spiritually uplifting to me.
Although inactive for 10 years, I still read all my scriptures. They are more important to me now than they were when I was active. I would love to go back to church but the literalists make it nearly impossible. Please realize there are many of us that have experienced the deeper meaning of the scriptures without having to literally believe they are historically true. I would come back to church but it is only people with your type of views that stop me; really, it is just that. I wish it were otherwise.
To mis-read something implies that it deviates from some standard or another, and I utterly refuse to hold my scripture reading hostage to historians, etc. by allowing them to act as this standard.
None of the scriptural authors had any stewardship over any of us. The only reason that we consider their writings binding (to the extent that we ought to) is because of the ongoing canonization process by those living authorities who do have stewardship over us: church leaders and God Himself. Thus, the Sunday School manuals, conference talks and personal revelation are the standards against which we ought to judge how we (mis)read the scriptures.
At no point do the multiple perspectives or historical contexts of different authors become all that relevant to the process. What matters is what my own, living priesthood channels tell me, not the human reasoning of any scholar.
This is a brilliant post. I think you should extend it and make it into an essay and publish it somewhere.
You know, it’s interesting. There have been several posts lately in the bloggernacle on the B of M and historicity, literal vs. figurative readings, etc. Two things are clear from the responses to those posts: 1) People are very sure of and defensive about THEIR way of reading/interpreting scriptures. 2) People are equally certain about the relative historicity (or not) of the B of M.
I think what I see at work in those two things is the unfortunate human tendency to take an obviously subjective response to scripture and try to universalize it, extending our mode of reading/connecting with an ancient (or 19th century) text to everyone and assuming, in fact, demanding, that others see and interpret the way we do. That’s really unfortunate and it tells me that Mormons in general don’t seem to be comfortable with nuance and complexity. Fair enough, I suppose, and if the literalist model works for folks, far be it from me to tell them they’re wrong. It saddens me, though, that we still seem to fall into the trap of divisiveness when we start talking about sacred things. I don’t think we’ve progressed a single step from the time of the Crusades on that issue, frankly.
Having said all that, to the big question you pose, hawkgrrrl, I think work of art (book, song, painting, etc.) that reaches out and touches us is inspired. I don’t believe that God only inspires his prophets. I believe he also inspired Caravaggio and Freddie Mercury and Margot Fonteyn. IMHO, books and stories and music and art generally all exist to make us feel less lonely and isolated an push us more towards each other. So I guess that means I have a rather expansive view of inspiration. I suppose that means that the fact that I seriously doubt the Book of Mormon’s historicity really doesn’t impact my testimony or my belief about how that text can help me improve as a person. Hamlet helped make me a better person and so has the Book of Ether. And no narrative is ever “true” in the sense that a lot of members use that word. Take a look at the Brother of Jared seeing the body of the Lord. That’s the most inspiring thing in the B of M to me, yet there are obviously questions regarding the narration. How does the writer know what the Brother of Jared spoke in his prayer if he wasn’t there to record it? How did the story get told and re-told? How can any story be re-told and repeated with perfect accuracy? (hint: It can’t). But these questions really don’t bother me so much. Because even if the story isn’t “True” with a capital “T”, it’s still inspiring and moving and impels me towards the better parts of myself and away from the darkness that’s within me as it is in all of us. Isn’t that the point?
I’m the non-historical believer quoted in the op. My thoughts above are led to a ‘ends justify the means’ conclusion that does not reflect my beliefs at all.
What I actually believe is that God is way bigger than we can possibly imagine. Thus that the BofM brings people to Christ is one millimeter-sized puzzle piece to a planet-sized puzzle.
It’s not that the ends justify the means, it’s that we small humans are incapable of understanding the processes of God’s ends or means. The possibilities with an omnipotent, all-powerful God between ‘JS was a con-artist’ and ‘everything happened with 100% accuracy as portrayed in church manuals’ are endless.
Brother of Bared,
I disagree with you. If its as you say then why not have God inspire Joseph Smith to restore the true gospel to tge earth with just inspiration of the already ecisting bible? Why is it that God instead uses a historical account of real people in real curcumstances to from ancient date to restablish his gospel. And that is the entire point. Only real history with real circumstances have the convincing power to establish truth. That is why the BoM as history works. Those found to be steadfast in the gosoel if our church know the BoM to be a real historical account of real people.
“Those found to be steadfast in the gosoel of our church know the BoM to be a real historical account of real people.”
I’m hoping this was unintentional, but you just showed me the door.
My new book strives to read the BoM in a better way. I essentially try to strip away the Nephite propaganda and American readings that have developed over the years. You might check out my FAIR conference presentation in a couple days which looks at the unintended consequences of Nephite policies and the Gadiantion ideology that included justice and land reform to re examine the rise of the robbers. Hint: Its much more than being inspired by Satan and having a lust for money and mayhem, but actually includes Nephite excess, the attempts to deny opponents legitimacy, and injustice.
ReT
No, I am inviting you to come into the room.
RO –
I don’t expect you to understand this, but please, please believe me when I say it. Your manner of dialogue is not inviting me in. You are shoving me out the door with two hands and a large shot gun while shouting ‘there is no place for you here.’
I don’t believe that is your intention, but that is exactly what you are doing. To me. To others. If it is not your aim to do so, you need to change you approach.
(I’m going to end dialogue with you on both this board and the other where we are engaging. I’ve reached the point where I find myself actually wanting to run from the church and the mentality that you espouse, and that is not *my aim* in life. I refuse to let you have that power over me.)
ReT,
Only you can choose not to open the door of faith and play an experiment of faith on the Book of Mormon. No one is chading you away or shutting you out. Only you can choose.
MH, but also evidence that most of the genocides are actually triumph narratives since the people extinguished were still around.
*head to desk repeatedly*
ReT: “I’m the non-historical believer quoted in the op. My thoughts above are led to a ‘ends justify the means’ conclusion that does not reflect my beliefs at all.” Thanks for clarifying your position. I’m not sure which comment was yours, but here was how I intended to link the comments to ideas.
I was linking this comment to ends justifying means: “But very clearly it draws people to Christ and therefore it must come from Christ.” But trying to link this comment to inspiration referring to something having a divine origin: “without rejecting the inspired revelatory nature by which the text came to be.”
Rob O.: Your comments seem like an answer in search of a question that wasn’t actually asked. My OP was about how we choose to read the scriptures, not how we believe in them. You are clearly talking about belief and not approaches to reading them, unless you view the BOM as primarily a history book, which your comments don’t seem to indicate you do. Whether historicity matters to belief wasn’t asked nor discussed in the OP. Christian’s post was about this, so I suggest you go over there to have that discussion.
)hawkgrrrl,
Its all relevent to the discussion.
Hawkgrrrl, your OP discussed reading the scriptures as either factual or fictional, which to me sounds the same as “believing” whether they are factual or fictional. So I think Rob O’s comments are germane to the discussion.
I think Rob O is correct that factual readings of the Book of Mormon were, and still very much are central to the way that LDS faith is conceptualised. A Book of Mormon understood as fictional would never have made much of an impression to the early converts, no matter how inspired it may have been.
People like myself, and ReT, who conceptualise history according to more modern/secular ideals are not going to “feel invited” by LDS culture’s literalist interpretations. LDS culture most certainly pushes away people of our ilk, no matter how loving and inviting Mormons personally try to be. In the end, the gospel as revealed to Joseph Smith was both a loving invitation, and a two-edged sword.
The great misunderstanding comes from the fact that orthodox believers interpret their readings as BOTH as literal, AND completely rational. But non-orthodox believers or those who desire to believe who come from more secular ways of viewing history, discover that they CAN’T seem to fit LDS beliefs into both the literal AND rational boxes. They have to separate their reason from their faith, something the orthodox don’t seem to need to do as much.
The orthodox view is evidenced by Rob O’s appeal to the rational formula of belief, asking ReT to “experiment” upon the word, which is a sort of seen as a kind of scientific spiritual experiment: believe, pray, receive spiritual evidence, and then you “know.”
But this spiritual “knowledge” does not count as evidence for literalism in the mind of someone who holds secular views of history. This “knowledge” has no bearing on the question of historicity, only of its spiritual truth, which could be literal or allegorical.
So people like ReT and myself are stuck trying to fit non-literal understandings in a literalist culture, which is kind of hard to do, even when the spirit confirms that we are supposed to be here. If we stay, we are destined to be a minority.
So if you’re inactive how do you expect to be taken seriously?
To clarify, if you have no horse in the race, (inactive) how do you expect your comments to be taken seriously?
“But this spiritual “knowledge” does not count as evidence for literalism in the mind of someone who holds secular views of history. This “knowledge” has no bearing on the question of historicity, only of its spiritual truth, which could be literal or allegorical.”
Yes. Nate, you explained my current situation perfectly. And the problem I see with not having a place for people like you or I is that our number is growing. Particularly among the youth.
Ronko- Not sure who you are addressing, but I am fully active. I even teach GD and sub for Seminary.
Nate,
You nailed it. And as ReT further explained that minority view is growing and for me, from my POV, its troubling.
Nate said “your OP discussed reading the scriptures as either factual or fictional, which to me sounds the same as “believing” whether they are factual or fictional” Yes, but Rob O. is addressing scripture in aggregate. No Mormon believes 100% of scriptures are 100% factual. My example was Balaam’s ass. We don’t take that story seriously in the church. So we are able to read parts of scripture as fictional without diminishing an overall belief.
While there may be an overall belief question associated with the BOM in aggregate being “factual” or “fictional” I deliberately didn’t address that. You can believe the book to be historical or not and still choose to read individual stories within it as either factual or fictional. You can even read the stories contained therein both ways and have a different response. The post was about reading, not about treating the BOM as a monolith, a litmus test for believers. Christian’s post was about belief, not mine.
To me, this just seems like a different topic, although the fact that we can’t seem to have a conversation about reading scripture without it devolving into an argument about what the historicity question means is very frustrating. I don’t like to see black & white pronouncements leveled toward commenters like ReT impugning their character as Mormons just because they believe differently if they also find meaning within the book as they read it. That’s not my jam. I don’t like encouraging that sort of taking up of cudgels.
Hawkgrrrl,
You created a post thats going to address points that need discussing. We dont live in a sheltered “only my POV matters” world. Reality is sometimes harsh. We also dont live in a “everybody gets a trophy” world. These issues with reading the Book of Mormon are serious and you just cant discuss the subject without a debate on it these days. The growing trend is towards a secular understanding of something nonsecular. The lens of atheism and secularism is rampant and now its infiltrating Mormonism. We have, up on top of our temples, the angel Moroni. But, if we read the BoM from a secular upbringing, it might as well just be a pokemon up there.
“We don’t live in a sheltered “only my POV matters” world.” You seem to.
As a refresher, here’s our commenting policy: “Each of the bloggers who writes posts on site is at liberty to determine the topicality of comments on their posts. If you attempt to derail discussions with pet issues that are irrelevant to the topic at hand, we’ll also reach out to you.” Consider this me notifying you that I believe you are attempting to insert your hobby horse topic. You think those who don’t believe as you do should be expelled from the body of Christ. You’ve made that point crystal clear in 100% of the comments you’ve made on every OP you’ve commented on. We get it. You are the border policeman. Duly noted.
But as I said, that wasn’t the topic of the OP. As the author, I’ve pointed that out to you repeatedly.
Ronkonkoma, “So if you’re inactive how do you expect to be taken seriously?”
Because Jesus said to go after the 1 and leave the 99 behind. Jesus was serious about the 1. You should be too. Instead we have people shutting the door on the 1. That is wrong. The 1 needs to be taken seriously, and the Saviour is the perfect example of that.
“Do you think we are encouraged toward a pre-modern reading of scripture?”
Yes. Here has been my experience:
1. Seminary teachers mocked science that contradicted the literal creation story. (“Do you believe in evolution? I don’t think everything was an accident.”) Seminary teachers have also been known to teach the story of Balaam’s ass as literal.
2. Institute manuals for the Old Testament ask the question of whether certain stories should be taken literally, and answer with quotes from 19th century leaders saying that, yes, these stories are literal. An alternative view is not presented. (This based on my feeble memory from many years ago. May have changed in a newer edition).
3. A common belief that Priesthood in ancient Israel looked much like it does today, with Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods, and perhaps the same offices (or parallel offices) of Deacons, Teachers, Bishop, etc. It seems like this view was supported in McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine, but I’m not sure. I would classify this as a folk doctrine, but many may disagree and call it actual doctrine.
4. Talmage’s book, Jesus the Christ, takes a “Harmony” approach to the four Gospels. (Note: this may have been the common scholarly approach for his time). The book is hugely significant because of its placement in the missionary library, being one of the only books missionaries are encouraged to read, raising it to a status that is almost canonical in nature. The Harmony approach to the gospels is to assume that all the gospels are accurate (as far as they are translated correctly, for us Mormons) even though they contain different nativity stories, different events, certain events out of order, events which are mostly the same but in some ways conflicting, etc. In contrast, most modern scholars believe that the gospels were written many years after the fact, based on the traditions of different communities, and therefore subject to errors of oral traditions.
For myself, I don’t like the premodern reading anymore. When I read about the firmament in the creation story, I know it’s not referring to the sky as I understand it. I can’t treat Job as a literal figure when I know that the book begins with the Hebrew equivalent of “once upon a time”. I don’t think that the whole earth was baptized by immersion in a literal flood, which is how the flood of Noah was described to me. And I don’t think that Moses lead people in a tabernacle ceremony the same as our temple ceremony, except it stopping earlier and ending with an animal sacrifice. (That is something I heard taught once). The modern reading that allows ancient Israel its own culture works much better for me.
On the other hand, I try to allow others the pre-modern reading. After all, when you read the book of Job, the important thing is not whether or not he was a real person, but how we can learn to live happily in a world that has such immense suffering.
Scriptures should be read to learn the lessons of other people’s lives. What worked, what didn’t and how to use those lessons to improve one’s own life. period.
When I read scripture, I seek for truth. There are a lot of different kinds of truth, I admit, but I do try to separate truth from untruth. For example, I don’t take the Book of Job to be entirely true (eg., I don’t believe that God bragged to Satan about how righteous Job is — I don’t believe God and Satan are on speaking terms). Maybe the story is an exaggeration based on a real person, or perhaps it’s an illustrative allegory, but it’s not an entirely faithful account of real events. I don’t choose to read the story factually one time and fictionally the other, I try to decide which part is which. I don’t actually know the answer, of course, so I try to withhold judgment on things which seem ambiguous and allow others the same flexibility. The story of Job strikes me as a thinking exercise about the nature of life, God, and suffering, and while I believe it can lead me to some truth, the fictional part of it (or perhaps entirety of it), the fact that it is not real, devalues it. The more solidly something is grounded in reality, the more value it has for me. The gospel as philosophy (which is real in a different way) isn’t compelling to me.
When I read the Book of Mormon, it’s very important to me that it is grounded in reality. For example, it’s important to me that Nephi really existed. Likewise, it’s important to me that Jesus Christ actually lived on earth and spoke many of the words we have in the scriptures (even if edited or paraphrased by other men, who really existed). I personally couldn’t find the idea of Jesus Christ as a divinely inspired concept to be at all satisfying. Furthermore, it’s very important to me that He actually performed miracles, because those miracles establish the reality of who He claimed to be even more firmly. For me, the resurrection needs to be real. It cannot be conceptual or exaggeration. My faith rests on the things I believe are real. (And Nephi and Moroni must also be real, or they can’t possibly establish the reality of Christ).
I accept that much of what’s found in the scriptures is myth, much is narrative that may or may not be entirely accurate, and all of it is filtered through the lenses of fallible human beings, but my faith is based on the things that I’ve decided are actually real. So when I read the scriptures, I’m trying to decide what is real, what is the narrator’s interpreted reality, and what is mostly myth. Then I try to interpret what those real things mean to me.
I believe Ronkonkoma was referring to my comment #5 above. My activity or inactivity is irrelevant to the subject at hand. I still read the scriptures, so that puts me on the playing field. But…if you want to compare pedigrees regarding “activity,” try this:
1. I’m a convert to the church of over 40 years.
2. I served a mission after only being a member 11 months.
3. I was ordained a High Priest at age 31.
4. I have served as Bishop’s counselor twice, YM’s President, Ward Clerk, Financial Clerk, been a High Counselor, and taught 2 years of full-time early morning seminary as well as Gospel Doctrine. There are a host of other callings I will not name b/c there is no point.
So what have you done? Does my “activity” of over 30 years not count b/c I have a different opinion than you and I don’t believe literally? That is why I left. You know who’s ruining the church? “Fundies” like yourself! Praise be!
“Is it more correct to say that the Book of Mormon is true (the word of God) as far as it is translated correctly?” I’ve always understood the 8th article of faith to be more about transmission. The Bible was a bunch of various texts written anciently, collected by different generations of religious movements, and run through various editors and translators. The BoM went directly from the two final editors (Mormon and Moroni) to a prophet who translated it via seer stone.
“Do you think we are encouraged toward a pre-modern reading of scripture? Is there value in other approaches?” The answer to both is absolutely.
“What is your preferred approach to scripture reading?” I prefer looking at historical context. Usually assuming they were real historical figures, but seeing the text as probably a biased account (since I know the story was recorded for an intended purpose).
“Are there some stories in scripture that you think are fictional that others consider to be factual? Does a story being fictional render it meaningless to you?” I really liked Michael Austin’s book about Job. The account we have is a giant piece of poetry with a prose prologue and epilogue. I can appreciate the poetry as the thoughts of Jews debating the merits of the prosperity gospel in the context of other Wisdom literature. I suspect there was likely some person who the story of Job was based on, but the book we have is more a legendary account as opposed to a historical record. People like to point to the outrageous stories ofJonah and Balaam as fictional, but I like the idea God talks to other nations, so I’m loathe to dismiss them off the bat. And I like to think that God has a sense of humor. Esther, Daniel, and Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego all have giant question marks when it comes to historicity. Not sure what to think. Willing to suspend my disbelief, I guess.
“What does inspired mean to you? What qualifies as inspired? Is all scripture inspired?” Anything can be inspired in the right context. Scripture is about gathering stories and remembering God’s interactions with people in the past. Maybe they were inspired to write music (Psalms). Maybe they were inspired to write parables and allegories that they assumed audiences would identify easily as such. Usually people are inspired to record historical events in which they see the hand of God, either implicitly or explicitly. (In ancient cultures it wasn’t just about religion, it was about giving their claims to the land credibility. Most ancient cultures had the hand of deity somehow involved in their founding.) I see the Book of Mormon as inspired history, but when I see someone compiling 1,000 years into a single book, it definitely makes me take that history with a giant grain of salt. (Kind of like the book of Ether stuffing in 2,000 years.)
BTW, I listened to Clive Romney talk about writing Scripture Power last year. His neighbor was a Primary President and requested he write a song for their primary activity since she knew he was a folk singer (Western/pioneer stuff). First of all, most of his original songs sound like jingles. Second, he submitted the song to the church several years before it ever got published, so the composition was probably much closer to 1980.
1st question: No. It may be translated 100% accurately, but that could mean Joseph translated the errors made by the editors.
2nd: Yes and yes. My preferred method is to pay attention to what the Spirit tells me is relevant and revelatory to my situation.
3rd: I hope some of them are fictional, particularly Job, which seems to me is about God making a bet with Satan. However, I love the idea of a talking donkey. And a story can be full of meaning for me even if it’s fictional.
4th: To me anything is inspired that enlarges my understanding of spiritual truth or motivates me to improve my relationship with God. I find that in the scriptures and in many other places as well.
Just to clarify, there is a difference between a literal approach and a pre-modern approach. A pre-modern can assume something is allegorical, and still ignore its original meaning and context. A literal approach means we assume events in stories happened in reality. We can take a literal story out of context and misunderstand it (a pre-modern literal reading) simply because we don’t question our modern filters and context and assume the world is mostly the same through time. And likewise we can take an allegorical story and read it from a pre-modern approach, misunderstanding it because we don’t know what the context was when it was originally presented. Origen, great thinker of the early church, was considered a heretic for viewing some stories as allegorical, but he was also most definitely a pre-modern reader.
Nate’s made a great point that was hinted at in the OP also but bears repeating, that those writing later scriptures that refer to earlier ones often exhibit a pre-modern reading approach. It’s clear that they are changing the context and meaning away from what the original author wrote in quoting scriptures from Old Testament prophets. They repurpose them for their time and understanding.
ReT and Nate, I read and believe scripture from a very similar perspective. Thanks for expressing it so well!
I don’t understand why some orthodox believers (including you, Rob O) are so troubled by the growing number of people who have a non-literal perspective. I want to understand, though. How is that a threat to orthodox believers’ way of life?
From my experience as a fairly young person, I can say that many of my contemporaries in and out of the church see truth as fluid and contextual. For example: what color is the sky? The “true” answer depends on time of day, temperature, humidity, and season. Right now it’s blue… In a few hours, it might not be. We also pay close attention to how “truth” affects us. If a song brings up the same internal experience as scripture reading, then I count them as similarly inspired.
I apply the same way of thinking when I read scripture–context is important, as is result. If it brings me closer to God and his creation, then truth value of historical claims surrounding the text is not that important to me. I am skeptical of many biblical and BoM stories’ historical truth, including the ones mentioned in the OP. In my mind, that doesn’t lessen their worth as tools for learning, contemplation, and mindfulness of divinity.
I second EM’s question about orthodox believers. What are folks afraid of? The church will/can never force you orthodox folks to read the way we do and vice versa, so why is it so troubling to hear that other people take a different approach to scripture? And I also second EM’s final paragraph. Words I live by.
“Nate’s made a great point that was hinted at in the OP also but bears repeating, that those writing later scriptures that refer to earlier ones often exhibit a pre-modern reading approach. It’s clear that they are changing the context and meaning away from what the original author wrote in quoting scriptures from Old Testament prophets. They repurpose them for their time and understanding.” This is true. The problem is that we have traditionally not accepted it in our church. If Isaiah’s prophecy is quoted in Matthew as referring to Christ, then clearly Isaiah meant that prophecy to refer to Christ. We value later prophetic interpretation of scripture, even if it is not consistent with the original historical context. Similarly, when church leaders quote Christ saying that searching the scriptures provides eternal life, they are typically stating this as a positive thing. In the context of the scripture, though, Christ is ridiculing the Jews for believing the scriptures provide eternal life when it is actually Christ who does so. In the new NT Institute manual, they carefully give both modern prophetic interpretation as well as modern historical interpretation of that scripture.
And that is precisely why orthodox believers find other approaches to scripture inappropriate. When you say, “Well *actually* the historical context of Isaiah suggests he was probably talking about Hezekiah, not Christ,” you are suggesting both NT and modern prophets were mistaken in interpretation. When you declare that the BoM is not, in fact, an ancient record (but inspired nevertheless), you are declaring modern apostles and prophets mistaken.
Suggesting prophets are fallible in a theoretical sense is okay. Pointing to specific instances where you believe they were mistaken still isn’t tolerated well.