Interpreting Controversial Scriptures

I can’t remember if it was something by Robert Borg of Bart Ehrman but that scholars now believe those references in corinthians weren’t by Paul but additions later by some unknown person who wanted to tag his own personal theology onto the letter. So for me the interpretation is easy. I just ignore it.

People here have talked about literal vs. figurative reading of scripture. The following posted on my personal blog yesterday, with a few slight modifications after re-reading it to post here:

When reading scriptures, there are so many ways to interpret nearly everything that is written that it is difficult to say with certainty that one interpretation is right and all others are wrong. This is true especially for verses that are controversial in our own time – and even ignored completely by most Christians.

…A different way to interpret is to attribute the idea to the speaker – as a personal statement, not as a command from God and,…The fourth way is simply to change the verse or passage – to re-translate it into an acceptable message…Joseph Smith did precisely this in his “Inspired Version” – changing words and meanings primarily to “correct” things he saw as mis-translations.

This is one thing that bothers me about the Church, the way they try to spell out the meaning of things so much for people rather than just giving them a little more flexibility to draw their own conclusions about what all these stories really mean. For example, they try to insist that Adam was literally the first man because the Bible said so and Joseph Smith even went 2 steps further to claim that the Garden of Eden was actually in Missouri of all places. Well what about the Cro-Magnons that were hunting mammoths 30,000 years ago? What were they, non-human animals? The Bible timeline just doesn’t account for all these missing years before about 4000 BC and some of the earliest stories like Noah’s Ark and the Tower of Babel don’t exactly look like the most accurate or plausible accounts either.

Actually by itself the Bible has some built-in wiggle-room to accommodate many different interpretations simply because these writings are so old and in many cases we are not sure who exactly wrote them and what changes could have been made to the original story. So if there’s something you don’t believe you can always chalk it off as a myth, legend, opinion, possible alteration by scribes, etc. without feeling like you have to throw out the parts of it that make more sense to you.

With the Book of Mormon it is harder for me to ignore any apparent problems because of the claim that it was all re-translated by the gift and power of God. I think this is what makes the entire Book of Mormon controversial to some extent; its origin and contents depend on some rather fantastic claims to be true. However, if I tell my bishop that I think the Book of Mormon is a fictional work what do you think his response would be? He’ll probably tell me that he knows it’s true and that I just need to pray about it more until I get the right answer. That’s one of my biggest problems with Mormonism; in many cases there really is only one acceptable answer and if I don’t happen to agree with it then I’m an evil apostate for not believing all of this at the same time.

It is some of the questionable assumptions about the expected reliability of prophets, revelation, and inspiration in delivering the supposed inerrant word of God that really get us into trouble sometimes and leave us with a tangled web of confusing and unbelievable doctrines. Personally, I think it would be better to just let people interpret these stories the way that makes the most sense to them rather than expecting everyone to believe in them all the same way.

It was in September 1964 at the mission home in SLC and we had a chance to ask questions of Joseph Fielding Smith. One elder asked what the church’s position on evolution was and his answer, “The church’s position on evolution is that it is a great fake.” I didn’t believe it then as a 19 year old elder about to preach to the heathen in New England and I don’t believe it now.

The Church’s official position is that we don’t know the exact details of the creation – and the last official statement from the FP was in 1909 (republished in the Ensign in 2002 – if I remember the year correctly). It states very clearly that Adam was the first “man” -.

I remember President Hinckley saying in speaking of evolution that Adam was the first man. Again I didn’t believe it when I heard him say it and I don’t believe it now. Sometimes I wonder how many things I can not believe and still feel that I belong

Fwiw, evolution is an easy issue for me to reconcile. (I”m not saying it should be for everyone – only that it is for me.) Maybe I will quote from and parse the 1909 FP statement about it in a post at some point, but there are a few things that make it so easy for me:

1) There never has been a unanimous voice rejecting evolution among the apostles and Prophets. There always have been some who accept it as the process by which the physical creation happened. Thus, in accepting evoltuion I’m not rejecting the Church leadership in any way; I’m just picking which ones to believe.

2) I don’t sustain church leaders in any way as scientists, and I don’t expect apostles and even Prophets to understand science better than scientists. (That actually might be the main reason.)

3) Almost every personal rejection of it I have read is based off the assumption that evolution is founded on the belief that there is no God, even among those who otherwise reject a young earth idea. Iow, when someone is working from a faultly foundation and incorrectly feels their very core belief in God is being attacked (which is not incorrect in some cases with some advocates of evolution), I understand reacting negatively – and even over-reacting. That is true especially with things that we simply don’t understand fully.

4) The Pearl of Great Price aupports the general idea of physical evolution MUCH more clearly than the Bible does – which means I feel justified in believing that physical evolution is much closer to being taught in “Mormon” scriptures than in other Christian scriptures.

5) As I said, the “current” official position of the Church explicitly leaves open the possibility that evolution was the source of the creation of Adam’s physical body. When you read the statement carefully, Adam being the first man ONLY means that at some point there was someone who differed from all other creatures in that he consisted of a mortal body and an immortal spirit child of God – thus, he was the first “man”, as the Church defines that term. Seriously, I’m not stretching anything by saying that; it’s the way the actual statement is worded. I can accept that, esepcially when the same statement says that his body might have started out as an embryo.

I think this is a great example of how scriptures can be interpreted to mean various things, how it’s important for us to be open to different ways to take them (running the entire range from exact word of God to total rejection), how we don’t have to throw out the baby (I am a child of God.) with the bathwater (young earth creationism that rejects evolution entirely). It is VERY easy for me to reconcile physical evolution with the Plan of Salvation as it is taught in the Church. I just have to be ok with not everyone agreeing with me – and that just ain’t a problem at all. 😆

But I personally don’t believe that Adam was a real person living at a real place (Eden) at a certain time. I would be curious as to what a poll of GAs would be in answer to that question though my sense from the tone of Pres. Hinckley’s statement is that he would have said he agreed with all three assertions.

Just as an aside I remember and Ensign article sometime in the last 10 years about Noah that said “no true Latter-day Saint” would doubt the reality of the story of a world wide flood. Sorry but can’t buy that one either.

😮 Wow, you’re sounding like me today!

I made the mistake of once discussing this with my TBM brothers and sister in laws. NOT GOOD! I think i made the comment that Jonah probably was not a real person and if he was, he probably didn’t get swallowed by a fish. The *@#% hit the fan!

I don’t know if it’s official church doctrine that Adam was the first man, who lived in Eden, and there was a world flood, and Noah got swallowed by a whale — but I think it is quite obvious, IMO, that 85% of the active LDS members would say IT IS true, and if you disagree, you are in a form of apostasy because you are being an “intellectual” and not listening to the prophets.

I don’t know if GA’s believe in a literal Adam and Eve, first human parents or not. I don’t, and I would guess many of them don’t, but they will not say so. It, IMO, is a great symbolic story to teach our relationship with God and how agency and opposition play a role in our spiritual journey. I don’t have an issue with it.

I agree Ray, about evolution. I would defend the LDS membership on this one. I don’t personally know many LDS members who believe in “creationism” like most protestants do. Some do for sure, but they generally stay quiet about it, as I don’t think they have much scripture of modern day prophetic statements to back them up. UNLIKE Noah, Adam and Eve, and Jonah.

is scripture really a valid source of truth

No. It’s a potential source of truth. As Emerson said (I’m paraphrasing from memory), “We believe the words of Jesus, not because they were spoken by him, but because the words themselves compel us.”

Yep, I guess that is where the whole buffet thing comes in. Just how much of a buffet “mormon” can we be, and STILL be “mormon?” SD makes the comment that in the eyes of the TBM, we are little more than jack mormons – luke warm mormons. Is he right? I struggle with this.

I think to the people who are TBMs in the ward — they’d think we were lukewarm Jack Mormons. However, I think one needs to recognize that those perceptions are relative.

For example, we have someone in our Ward who comes once in a while, will participate if you ask him in cultural and social events, and shows up for the occasional move. He admitted he doesn’t like to pay tithing, and only did it for a year so he could go through the temple when his son was married. He stopped after the marriage was over. To him, a lukewarm person probably isn’t looked upon as lukewarm at all. And to someone who is a Mormon in membership record only, and doesnt’ live the commandments like WoW, tithing etcetera, or doesn’t attend Church meetings – an active buffet Mormon probably seems like a devout person.

To answer your question — can you still be a Mormon and be a buffet-style Mormon? I think so. The definition of an active Mormon is someone who has been baptized and attends Church twice a month. I think that’s a pretty achievable standard for most buffet Mormons.

Where it gets dicey is when you start reflecting on whether a person is meeting the requirements for the highest level of salvation by being a buffet Mormon. If a person chooses not to live all the temple recommend commandments as part of their buffet, then the LDS doctrine would say you’re probably risking eternal progression. In that case, you might end up in the Terrestrial kingdom. However, the terrestrial kingdom is a lot like the heaven of all the protestant religions that could be viable alternatives to Mormon Christianity — not married, life with Christ only, a better place than here, surrounded by good people. So, why not stick it out here so you can let the good parts of the religion potentially work on you so you WANT to qualify for eternal progression some day?

However, let’s consider a different kind of person — living the TR commandments, but treating other non-TR expectations with the buffet mentality (moving people, doing family history work, cleaning the chapel, doing home teaching, or getting involved in what I feel are sometimes “nuisance expectations” that are too many to mention), then I think one’s salvation is at less risk. However, that’s only my opinion.

As I’ve been trying to find myself in the Church after my most recent trial of faith, I’m leaning toward being a TR-holding LDS person, active, involved, but being a buffet Mormon on soft commandments (like attending Stake Priesthood meetings which I find repetitious and boring) or simply nuisance expectations that drive me nuts. And also, being choosy about whether I take on leadership callings in the future, and not put myself out for things that I feel aren’t a good use of my time. For example, no longer will I accept callings that have me run off my feet for years at a time that I can’t get released from when I get burned out.

This to me feels like he right equilibrium for the time being because it seems to preserve the possibility of celestial glory which I believe may well exist, preserves my eligibility for future leadership experiences if I want them, while reducing angst considerably.

I know you tend to disagree with me CWald — that you think I’m a little too bound by others perceptions of me, but I feel that being vocal and outwardly contrarian only limits one’s opportunities for the future. I believe that if we choose to identify with a particular community, there’s going to have to be some assimilation of customs and values we may find irksome. It’s that way in my job right now, and I just have to suck it up at times. I think the same need to just suck it up would happen in another Church, as well. No situation is ever ideal, and I still think the guts of the LDS lifestyle is a good thing at heart.

By the way — sucking it up doesn’t mean you can’t make the LDS experience better for others and yourselves within the realm of your own influence. You can stop non-doctrinal platitudes in your Sunday lessons, welcome casually dressed home teachers to your home, and, if you get into leadership, offer alternate approaches to some of the objectionable practices we hold as a Church when input is sought.