For over 100 years, Bible scholars have analyzed the Bible text and historical sources to understand more about things like: when it was written, by whom, actual historical events or extant literary sources that influenced the text, etc. For religions that are open to progress/revelation, the information learned by scholars in this process has sometimes informed and modified the religious interpretation and even theological understanding of the Biblical passage.
Latter-day Saints are pretty comfortable with this process. I highly recommend Ben Spackman’s 2019 FairMormon address on this topic. He talks about three fallacies of absolutism (another word for a fundamentalistic approach to scripture, viewing it as the infallible Word of God).
First, absolute consistency. This minimizes differences, tensions or contradictions in history or scripture as only imagined, misunderstood, or mistranslated. Often the word harmonize has been abused not to actually make harmony, but to make things sing in unison.
Second, absolute accuracy. That is, in this fundamentalist assumption, the idea is that revelation speaks primarily in historical and scientific terms and is necessarily factually correct because it comes from the mouth of God. This touches on the issue of recognizing different genres in scripture, as well as inerrancy. Now, our teachers, our materials, most of us do not often talk about genre in scripture, and while we give lip service to errancy, in practice many of us are inerrantists.
This third, the third assumption here is that revelation is absolutely unmediated. That is whatever human elements might exist in the revelatory process have no functional effect on the end result as it reaches us.
Scripture is not always consistent. Scripture is not always accurate. Scripture is not always transmitted by God unmediated by human error.
Though we are pretty comfortable applying this logic to the Bible, we still don’t seem to be as comfortable applying this same process to the Book of Mormon. Perhaps due to misinterpreting or taking too seriously the 8th 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.
However, informed LDS scholars are increasingly applying this type of logic to the Book of Mormon in interesting ways. A few examples.
- Tower of Babel. The Book of Mormon makes reference to Noah’s flood and Tower of Babel in a way that assumes the historic interpretation of these. Noah’s flood as a global flood. Tower of Babel as the event where humans dispersed and different languages were created. As recent as 1998, an (absolutely horrible and embarrassing) Ensign article criticized modern, alternate interpretations for these events. But, for informed LDS who accept traditional scientific understanding related to a global flood and the evolution of culture and languages, a common way to handle this would be with a loose translation model and put the fault on Joseph Smith, saying that minor errors and 19th century cultural misunderstandings crept into the Book of Mormon through an imperfect translation process. That always seemed fine to me. But some informed LDS scholars (Apologists) have made an interesting argument that goes like this: the Book of Ether was abridged by Moroni. Ether, who lived a thousand years after the Brother of Jared, might have abridged earlier writings which might have already been abridged and summarized. So, when the Book of Mormon says Brother of Jared’s people were at the Tower of Babel where others had their language confounded, it could have been a later writer (Moroni, Ether, or other) who made improper assumptions due to having access to the Hebrew Bible Genesis account, wrongly assuming it was literal. This wrong assumption could have been preserved in future abridgements and translations.
- Sermon on the Mount. Some of the Book of Mormon account of the visitation of Jesus Christ to the Nephites in 3 Nephi contains verses or phrases that scholars don’t believe were in the earliest New Testament manuscripts. Also, some Bible scholars view the Sermon on the Mount, not as an event that actually happened, but a collection of sayings of Jesus, injected into a narrative form. I have seen arguments from LDS scholars recently that acknowledge and allow for this, proposing that a later abridger like Mormon (or translator) of the Book of Mormon did this same type of thing, combining sayings into a unified sermon, in a way that might not correlate accurately to one historical event, the way the Book of Mormon and Bible report it.
- Nephite Racism. Recently there was a brou-ha-ha over a racist statement in the Come Follow Me manual related to skin color and the Lamanites. Joseph Fielding Smith got thrown under the bus, but it seems to most readers like the racism is there in the Book of Mormon from the beginning. I saw some arguments made by LDS acknowledging that Nephi might have been racist and put in his own wrong assumptions about the Lamanite skin color. Russell Stevenson in a public Facebook comment wrote very insightfully (reposted here with permission):
For the Sunday School-erati among us, a brief take on 2 Ne. 5 and racism and How Nephi Projected His Own Bias and Ethnocentrism onto Revelation: It’s been a fairly straightforward read to me.
Nephi (the figure who serves as author in this narrative) is ethnocentric and by modern terms, racist.
1. Nephi was writing a memoir explaining his legitimacy as the rightful successor to Lehi. He needed to explain how the Lamanites (descendants of his apostate brethren) became the horrible people that they were—and reads their change of skin tone as an indicator. They had left the covenant and, one might easily interpolate, intermarried with indigenous peoples. His was not a contemporary record. His was a justification.
2. Nephi records the Lord’s language (2 Ne. 5): “And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done. . .They shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction.” Nephi speaks in “tribal” terms here, referring to whole peoples and nations as not only wicked but also, inherently adversarial. It’s standard fare Old Testament-ese—and I’m much more grateful that we speak in more individualistic tones these days. But note: the Lord, at no point, connects skin tone/color to the scourging, cursing, etc.–in any way.
3. When Jacob offers a more contemporary record only a few years later, he highlights Lamanite righteousness and the utter irrelevance of skin color to righteousness. He gave his speech within a very short time of 2 Ne. 5’s writing) at the time of Nephi’s death), so it _should_ have matched Nephi’s sentiments—but doesn’t. So either they’re a loathsome scourge who are cursed, or they’re a more complicated composite of moral goodness and cursedness. Jacob gives no indication that there’s a massive, Lamanite wide repentance process. And we have a pretty one-sided account. So either they repented and we don’t know about it, or Nephi viewed Lamanite marriage practices and melanin through a lens he imposed on the Lord’s words.
A fascinating opportunity to highlight how we interject rationales onto the Lord—even when he’s never said so himself. The Book of Mormon can offer powerful anti-racism lessons for those willing to turn the text around in a different light.
That’s an interesting way to explain the skin color assertions in the Book of Mormon. Assuming the Book of Mormon is historical. And assuming the Book of Mormon was produced in a somewhat similar process as the Bible (ie humans recording their experience and interaction with the divine from their perspective while not always getting everything right in an absolute sense), we should expect a lot of this kind of thing. It’s refreshing to see this kind of anti-absolutist, anti-fundamentalistic approach to LDS scripture.
Up to this point, I have shared examples from LDS scholars who give non-traditional explanations of some issues in the Book of Mormon but who affirm its historicity. I’m changing directions a bit here.
As a faithful LDS who doesn’t believe in BOM historicity but views it as a non-historical, inspired revelation to Joseph Smith, this really makes me think about how different my view is from this nuanced, fallible, quasi-historical version.
What is the real theological difference? In terms of reliability of the text of the Book of Mormon, I think it’s almost exactly the same position. In the nuanced historical version, we have faith the book is full of truth, but also we know it is full of human error and we individually as members and collectively as a church, must struggle with what could be an error and what is truth. Our own study and intellect, the Holy Ghost, and the counsel of Church leaders guide us in that endeavor. In the inspired but non-historical version, the process is the exact same.
The supernatural translation process is what blows this up and really makes one wonder about the theological ramifications. In the historical but fallible version, God is preserving error in the Book of Mormon. Serious error in the case of racism. In the inspired but non-historical version, the buck stops at Joseph. He got it right a lot. He got it wrong a few times. God can be accused of being hands-off but not accused of preserving error and perpetuating racism. Which is theologically more favorable? I think it’s a question worthy of discussion.
Maybe you should adopt Hugh Nibley’s approach and accept the Book of Mormon as what it says it is rather than scholarly theories about what it is.
This is a great post and I wish we were discussing things like this in Sunday School. I think you nail it that people get really uncomfortable with the non-historical approach because we’ve used the BOM as the litmus test for whether Joseph was a prophet for so long. You pray about the BOM, you get your answer, Joseph was a prophet, the Church is true and that is why you should come clean the chapel on Saturday mornings and not drink coffee.
The problem with this approach and what Arelius11 suggests is that there are pretty compelling arguments for the BOM being non-historical and the old apologetics are no longer holding up.
We had a great intro to the BOM Sunday School class in my ward and the focus was borrowed from Greg Prince on focusing on what has the BOM done and not what it is. When the focus is on what it has done, we can point to what it’s done for us personally, how it’s resonated with the world, etc. I like this approach because each person can decide for themselves what it is and make that work. For most members, the traditional narrative is the most solid and they are not interested in moving beyond that, for some a loose translation model works and some (myself included) feel that the evidences forces them to accept a non-historical model.
Some people say “follow the prophet”. And then when it is pointed out that prophets are not perfect they say “follow the scriptures”. Now we seem to be saying that the scriptures aren’t perfect (or even true all the time). I think many members are willing to say that about the Bible. After all, there’s a talking donkey in there somewhere. But you are now going to assert that the BOM contains racist language that reflects Nephi’s racism? Good luck.
What if instead I was to say that the BOM is not literal. It’s a series of stories influenced by sources contemporary to Joseph Smith. And so his ideas leak into the stories, like how Americans felt about Native Americans in the 1800s. Doesn’t that make more sense?
“As a faithful LDS who doesn’t believe in BOM historicity but views it as a non-historical, inspired revelation to Joseph Smith”
churchistrue: my mind somewhat shares this position, but my mind and heart both realize that we are a “I HAVE SEEN…” religion, which is a major part of our foundation, i.e.:
.Mary saw an angel of God, who told her that she, as a virgin, would be the mother of the Son of God.
.Mary of Magdala, the 11 apostles, and others saw the risen Lord, felt the wounds in His hands, and rejoiced in his resurrection.
.Joseph Smith saw The Father and The Son.
.Joseph Smith saw The Angel Moroni, who instructed him over a 4 year period, in whom he received the plates on which the Book of Mormon was translated from, and to whom Joseph returned the plates.
.Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery saw John the Baptist, who physically laid his hands on their heads and gave them the lesser priesthood, and the ancient apostles Peter, James and John, who bestowed the greater priesthood. Other ancient prophets would, in person, restore other priesthood powers.
All of these, and many more, are presented as factual (as opposed to allegorical) and historical.
With that said, I really do like the thoughts present by you and Russell Stevenson.
This comment is a question I have thought a lot about. I am not sure of the answers.
Without sarcasm, this post and the responding comments are all very interesting. Especially so, given the Church’s gradually-enfolding and still-continuing attempts to deal with racist attitudes common to the 19th Century, that in a Church context became a ban on all members of a given race holding the priesthood. And still cause a lot of racist attitudes in our Mormon culture.
But to me, the posts and comments do not confront the essential question. IMO, the key question is the whole idea of a Chosen People, period. The Israelites as a people to receive and maintain God’s covenant with the human race. Early Gentile Christians grafted into the posterity of Abraham as part of the Chosen People, because of their belief and the resulting grace from Jesus Christ. Latter-day Saints as the Chosen People in this dispensation to bring the Restored Gospel to this world.
The concept of a Chosen People is inherently discriminatory. He chooses some peoples over others, to lead His work. The concept of Christ’s Church, receiving His grace and blessings, is likewise discriminatory. In religious narratives, some people are favored over others, even though God’s favor often means enduring persecution at the hands of others. And persecuted Chosen People are pretty good at persecuting people who don’t agree with them, right back. Puritans fled to New England to worship the way they wanted, and promptly denied that right to those who disagreed with them. Stories from the Wasatch Front of non-Mormons feeling excluded by the Mormon majority abound.
So what is the answer? Are we going to tell God that He should not choose certain individuals and peoples to do His work? I don’t think so. Are we going to claim that the concept of a Chosen People is merely an uninspired human construct? I think that is very risky.
The only answer that I can come up with is that those who are chosen by God must confront the world as God’ s servants, and as the servants of the people whom God wants to bless.
Thoughts?
Sometimes the determination to demonstrate that one has the intellectual courage and personal integrity required to face difficult issues can cause a person to overlook important things that, if acknowledged, make the issues far less difficult, and therefore reduce the drama of facing the problems, and therefore, become counter-productive with respect to the effect of the demonstration.
1. Way back in The World of the Jaredites, in The Improvement Era, Nibley pointed out that the Ether account does not mention “The Tower of Babel” nor does it discuss “the event where humans dispersed and different languages were created.” It discusses “the great tower” in setting where everywhere you look, people will building ziggurats, which were great towers to get to heaven. And he talks about how the problem was the confounding of languages, which means “mixing together.” And the only mention of the Biblical Noah in comparing the Jaredite barges to the ark of Noah (Ether 6:7). And Nibley points out that the description of the Jaredite barges is very much akin to the Babylonian magur boats described in ancient sources not known in Joseph’s day. And of course, in Before Adam and else where, Nibley made a case that the Bible and LDS scripture do not force us to defend a global flood, Parry in the 1998 Ensign or no.
2. Regarding the Sermon at the Temple and Sermon on the Mount, rather than referring to unnamed “scholars”, it would help to refer specifically to John W. Welch and his book Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount. Among other things he notes that
“In one important passage, manuscript evidence favors the Sermon at the Temple, and it deserves recognition. The kjv of Matthew 5:22 reads, “Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause [eikei] shall be in danger of the judgment” (italics added). The Sermon at the Temple drops the phrase without a cause (3 Nephi 12:22). So do many of the better early manuscripts…In my estimation, this textual variant in favor of the Sermon at the Temple is very meaningful. The removal of without a cause has important moral, behavioral, psychological, and religious ramifications, as it is the [Page 191]main place where a significant textual change from the kjv was in fact needed and delivered.” (Welch, 201-202).
For example, Welch, drawing on the work of New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias, notes that “five things are presupposed by the Sermon on the Mount: it assumes that its audience is already familiar with (1) the light of Christ, (2) the coming of the new age, (3) the expiration of the old law, (4) the unbounded goodness of God, and (5) the designation of the disciples as successors of the prophetic mission. These must be taken as givens for the Sermon on the Mount to make sense. Strikingly, these are among the main themes explicitly stated in 3 Nephi 9:19 and 11:3–12:2 as a prologue leading up to the Sermon in 3 Nephi 12–14.” 30 On these and many other points rele-vant to Russell’s claims, Welch’s book is an important contribution to Book of Mormon (and New Testament) scholarship, demonstrating how the temple context of the Sermon at the Temple “offers answers to questions about why the Sermon was given, what was being said, what kind of sermon it was, how all of its parts fit together, and what it all means.” (Discussed in Welch, Illuminating, 14-15. and in my essay here:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a63a/3eba58468aae995e966c1c492e381f1ced6a.pdf
Indeed, Welch’s work in Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount led directly to Welch being invited to produce The Sermon on the Mount in Light of the Temple.
Here is a talk showing just how far this approach gets you:
http://www.templestudiesgroup.com/Papers/Temple_Welch.pdf
3. And regarding skin in the Book of Mormon, I think no discussion ought to ignore Ethan Sproat’s JBMS essay on Skins and Garments in the Book of Mormon.
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol24/iss1/7/
“Alma 3:5–6 is comprised of two sentences, in each of which the word skin(s) appears. Commentaries handle the two sentences in one of three ways: (1) by treating both of them independently, as if two very different things were at issue; (2) by commenting on only the second of the two sentences, remaining silent about the first; or (3) by failing to comment on either sentence.3 All three of these approaches miss the fact that, when read in context, the use of skins in the second sentence appears to form part of a historical explanation of the use of skin in the first sentence. Here is the text:
“Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth. And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.” (Alma 3:5–6)4
According to a reading I will defend in the course of this article, this passage suggests the possibility that “the skins of the Lamanites” are to be understood as articles of clothing, the notable girdle of skin that these particular Lamanites wear to cover their nakedness. Significantly, these are the only two references to skins in Alma 3, which contains the Book of Mormon’s most thorough explanation of the Lamanite curse and the curse’s relationship to skins. Thus situated, Alma 3:5–6 might serve as an interpretive Rosetta stone. If both instances of skins in Alma 3:5–6 refer to clothing, then the other five references to various-colored or cursed skins in the Book of Mormon could also refer to clothing and not—as traditionally assumed—to human flesh pigmentation.”
Sproat’s essay shows that those who argue that “skin means skin” overlook the direct evidence that in the Book of Mormon, skins can be garments. And Sproat’s essay could have been strengthened by observing that in many places the Book of Mormon uses the exact same language with respect to garments.
2 Nephi 8:14 “clothed with purity, even with the robe of righteousness” Jacob speaking as a consecrated High Priest on the Day of Atonement
Jacob 1:19 “laboring…their blood might come upon our garments… and we would not be found spotless”
Jacob 3:5, “cursing which has come upon their skins…”
Jacob3:8-9 “their skins shall be whiter than yours
Try Mosiah 3:28, rid my garments of your blood (temple and high priest on day of atonement context)
Alma 5:21-24, garments stained with blood and all manner of filthiness contrasted with prophets whose garments are cleansed, and are spotless, pure and white
Alma 7:25, garments spotless… in the kingdom of heaven
Alma 13:11-12, garments washed white through the blood of the Lamb… garments made white, being pure and spotless”
Alma 34:36
Helaman 9:31-34 (where the symbolic use and the literal use combine, as the blood on garments testify to the sins committed)
3 Nephi 19:25 (literal in a different way, transfiguration) compare with Moroni 7: the sons of God,…we shall be like him… purified even as he is pure”
3 Nephi 27:19 “washed their garments in my blood”
4 Nephi 24 (pride and costly apparel)
Mormon 9:34, garments and the priestly obligation to testify to “rid our garments of the blood of our brethren”)
Ether 12:37 “thy garments shall be made clean…sitting down in the place which I have prepared in the mansions of my Father”
Ether 12:38, “my garments are not spotted with your blood”
Moroni 10:31, “put on thy beautiful garments, O daughter of Zion”
Plus, both Sorenson and Nibley had pointed to culturally specific expressions in the Ancient Near East relating the “skin of blackness” to lifestyle, rather than appearance. Examples appear in Lamentations and Job, and elsewhere.
FWIW
Kevin Christensen
Canonsburg, PA
“In the inspired but non-historical version… God can be accused if being hamds-off but not of preserving error…”
No, just making error up out of whole cloth.
I have long believed that, in order to believe that the church is true wothout believing in the historicity of (at least most of) the Book of Mormon, you have to believe in a cruel God.
You end up concluding that the Lord, when it came time to restore his Church, caused Joseph Smith to write a fictional account of the ancient America’s and then try to present it as historucal fact. Those who believed Joseph’s claims then became the Lord’s true church, while those who rejected said claims were denied the blessings of being a part of the church.
Since I don’t believe that God is deceitful, or that he ever requires his people to believe in false narratives, I can’t accept your claims. Either Joseph really had the golden plates, or else a just God could have no reason to accept the Mormons as his church and bless them for their faithfulness to Joseph and his book.
Believing Joseph. If you retain the “one true church” belief, then yes, the non-historical BOM would be very bizarre. Take the BOM away, and I think there are enough strikes against the restoration (polygamy, Book of Abraham, etc) that God comes out just as deceitful, if you’re going to hold to that traditional view of the church as God’s one, true church. Part of the shift to a non-historical revealed BOM for me is a shift away from LDS as God’s one, true, church and a view of our church as a good and important church, maybe the best church. But religion and doctrine in my paradigm is a human creation, trying to approach and understand God, not God’s absolute truth pushed down to man.
churchistrue,
If that is actually your paradigm – that the LDS church has no unique claim on God’s favor that other churches lack – then of course your views on the Book of Mormon make more sense.
On the other hand, if I shared your views about 1) the non-historicity of the Book of Mormon, and 2) the non-existence of a “one true church” then I would prefer to raise my children in almost any church but the LDS church. I have seen too many good-hearted youths turn irreligious after coming to the conclusion that their leaders were decietful for me to find any value in such a paradigm.
I am inclined to agree with Rick Powers that our religion is too oriented on tangible things for us to do away with tje golden plates and still have a leg to stand on. At this point, I really believe that Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris and David Whitmer saw the golden plates, and that’s why I’m still a Mormon.
Wow–Taiwan Missionary’s comment really hits the nail on the head!
The underlying issue here truly is the idea of being a chosen people–and my view on this now is that this is a human creation. This was an important contributor to my deconstruction of faith. My professional work is in public policy, and I grew increasingly aware of the gap between the church’s perspective on administering to others and the government’s challenges that we have in providing efficient and equitable services to all people. I see a lot of the service work that we do in the church is inwardly focused, helping each other out, rather than helping those on the outside in need. I do value the help we give each other, and I think that’s an important part of being in community, so I’m not faulting it, but I think our ministering within often crowds out out-group ministering. This is certainly the case of the church as an institution: while the church does offer some assistance externally, the revelations of the $100B fund clearly showed that our outward-facing generosity is far smaller than our actual capacity to give–sadly.
I came to recognize the idea of being a “chosen people” as in-group loyalty. This sentiment is common among all groups, but it is, at its core, discriminatory. And I feel that discrimination is antithetical to Christ’s ministry. I was always especially moved by Jesus’ ministry to the poor and marginalized, which radically challenged the social hierarchy of the time. Both the just and the unjust get similar amounts of sun and rain.
Why, then, do the Mormon’s get special access to God and blessings that others do not? Short answer: If God truly is just, we don’t get special access. If we believe we get special access, we no longer believe in a just God. Seeing the incompatibility in these things, I choose to believe in a just God, but not a chosen people. At least, that’s how I’ve emerged from this conundrum.
I really appreciate this post. I’ve started thinking about the Book of Mormon more this way in recent years and feel like it is an approach that is worth getting comfortable with because it opens up the door to more nuanced approaches to the Book of Mormon.
As for Taiwan Missionary’s comment, I’ve often wondered the same thing. Why a chosen people? Why the Hebrews? The best answer I’ve thought of so far is that God started with a focused group to form the nucleus of a saved people with the intent of it spreading out from there and eventually involving everyone. I don’t know that’s completely satisfying, but it’s a step towards a just God rather than a discriminatory one.
Russell Stevenon’s idea that it was Nephi’s latent racism, leaps over the ”fact” that before Nephi’s eyes, the Lamanites – man, woman, and child – were given dark skins. Did God actually do that? And if so, Nephi’s racism is to blame for how God’s innocent act is misinterpreted?
Taiwan Missionary – 100%. Chosen people are a very poor delivery system for the one true gospel to all the world. History has demonstrated that the more chosen the chosen people think they are, the more exploitive they are to their members and the more atrocity-prone their actions are to their neighbors.
Believing Joseph – Yes, great logic.
Harry B. – I agree. The more conditional God’s love and exclusive his blessings (channeled through the chosen people), the further from the true nature of God and the more God has been formed in man’s image.
For me, the BOM is a fiction. It can certainly inspire and entertain. But not the Word of God.
“God is preserving error in the Book of Mormon”
Basically, yes.
God’s role in this was not to re-write the Book of Mormon and make editorial changes on the fly (otherwise why bother with human authors at all?). It was to transmit the text to JS.
BeenThere The idea is that Nephi is writing this years later after he’s seen a generation or two of offspring. And if the assumption is that Lamanites are intermarrying with indigenous people, their offspring could be different skin color. Personally, it doesn’t work for me. But it’s an interesting approach and is an illustration I use that some in the BOM historicity camp to view the text as something much more humanistic than many of us have been conditioned to think.
Appreciate the several remarks responding to the question I raised of why God uses Chosen People. But I think I need to clarify my own position. While BeenThere might be right that it is a very poor delivery system, it nevertheless seems to be the vehicle that God has opted for—whether for the Hebrews, Early Christians, Reformers, Latter-day Saints, Muslims, etc. There are also Buddhist sects that claim divinely chosen status; I am not sure about Hinduism. My point is, I do not think it is a question of right or wrong—it just IS.
In my earlier comment, I attempted to “square the circle” of discrimination and treating “non-Chosen” as inferior (which they are not) by stating that God expects His Chosen People to act as loving servants to the rest of the world, to bless them, rather than as a Master Sadly, that is not always the case, but I believe that is what God wants. In our case as Mormons, God has given us things through Joseph Smith, that the worlds had not yet been blessed with.
I think Chad Nielsen states it best: God starting out with the nucleus of a chosen people, and, starting out from that point, spreading His love and blessings throughout the whole earth. A lump of leaven that fills the whole earth.
This is not just with religion. Certain cultures “discover” certain things that they then spread, which winds up blessing the whole world: e.g. the Chinese might have discovered printing first, but it was Gutenberg’s later discovery in 1453 that changed the world.
Appreciate the several remarks responding to the question I raised of why God uses Chosen People. But I think I need to clarify my own position. While BeenThere might be right that it is a very poor delivery system, it nevertheless seems to be the vehicle that God has opted for—whether for the Hebrews, Early Christians, Reformers, Latter-day Saints, Muslims, etc. There are also Buddhist sects that claim divinely chosen status; I am not sure about Hinduism. My point is, I do not think it is a question of right or wrong—it just IS.
In my earlier comment, I attempted to “square the circle” of discrimination and treating “non-Chosen” as inferior (which they are not) by stating that God expects His Chosen People to act as loving servants to the rest of the world, to bless them, rather than as a Master Sadly, that is not always the case, but I believe that is what God wants. In our case as Mormons, God has given us things through Joseph Smith, that the worlds had not yet been blessed with.
I think Chad Nielsen states it best: God starting out with the nucleus of a chosen people, and, starting out from that point, spreading His love and blessings throughout the whole earth. A lump of leaven that fills the whole earth.
This is not just with religion. Certain cultures “discover” certain things that they then spread, which winds up blessing the whole world: e.g. the Chinese might have discovered printing first, but it was Gutenberg’s later discovery in 1453 that changed the world.
Here is an interesting paper on the Tower of Babel and flood story. https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/seely_babel_wtj.pdf
I hear you Taiwan Missionary. I just don’t think that it’s God that is calling Chosen People. I think that God has spoken throughout history and throughout the globe. And I think men leverage that reality and proclaim a Chosen People to carry the torch of the One True whatever.
While the beginnings may have been sparked by God, men fanned the flames into exclusive, exploitative systems that are so different in their declarations of absolute truth, often so violently opposed to each other, that they can’t all possibly carry continued divine approval.
Maybe God is just infinitely patient with humans, declaring a new Chosen People, knowing that we’ll just keep screwing it up but will ultimately get it right.
I struggle to name one such movement – that no matter how noble their initial motives – hasn’t ended up wallowing in unrighteous dominion and elitism. God’s universal message of healing love gets placed behind a paywall.