Making the Bible Divine, The Work of Translation.

So if the old testament really is not missing a bunch of passages detailing the mission of Jesus Christ, I think that somewhat dismisses those passages in the BofM. The message may be good, but still why would anyone continue to try and claim it as actual history.

IMO, because we have groomed a generation of Mormons that rely on spiritual welfare from their church leaders. We have conditioned our “tribe” to believe and ” follow the prophet” without doing any real thinking on there own. Most members don”t care, and will not pursue these kind of logical thought processes because they just expect the Prophets to do it for them and come to the conclusions, and tell them how to think, what to believe, and how to behave.

Joseph Smith clearly saw scripture much more as a starting point for inspiration than as an infallible proof-text. I see most things that way – especially the temple.

The whole “liken all things unto ourselves” concept follows that same pattern – and absolutely is consistent with ancient Jewish practice.

I’ve believed for a long time that someone else’s words are less important in and of themselves than the impact they have on the hearer. From a practical standpoint, the greatest sermon in the history of the world would be useless – totally meaningless – if there was nobody to hear or read it.

and, fwiw, that is the human default setting for the large majority of people in this world. Getting people to change that natural tendency is part of the message of “pure Mormonism”, imo. (“agents unto themselves”)

Sure there is the stuff in Isaiah that foretells of a messiah, but that is a pale and vague comment compared to what the BofM relates about christ before his birth.

[disclaimer, this is my personal opinion]

The only reason those connections exist is because the authors of the New Testament told the story that way. When Jesus was killed, his followers were not quite sure what to do. They had to build a story to explain the meaning of their life experience, which now involved -big surprise- a Jesus that was killed by the Romans as a criminal.

So you have an author like the person who wrote the Gospel of Matthew, who makes a literary point over and over again writing statements like this:

“And Jesus did X, as was foretold by Y.”

The author of Matthew was a Jewish Christian in the area of Jerusalem trying to explain what happened by looking in his “scriptures” to find guidance. He had the Gospel of Mark, but didn’t find it satisfying. So he came up with a better story. By searching his religious writings for passages that sounded like they “fit” what happened.

Joseph Smith did this in his day.

We do this in our life too as 21st Century LDS (different than what JS needed to do).

Brian I agree completely. The question then becomes do we really look at scripture as anything more than one mans viewpoint?

The question then becomes do we really look at scripture as anything more than one mans viewpoint?

That’s a really compact way of describing the way I mostly tend to see them. It isn’t the only way, and I don’t even claim it is the best way. But I see a scripture-document as a reflection of what the author thought about their religion. It is VERY much a product of the author.

The meaning I make from it though is very much a product of ME. It tells me a lot about myself.

Both of these can possibly tell me things about God or Jesus (the Christ, not necessarily the historical Jesus). It is still meaningful for me, just in a different way. What we tend to wrestle with here is the dissonance we feel trying to look at scripture in a critical thinking perspective AND at the same time holding the expectation that it was dictated by God via His biological texting device — a prophet.

Great point Ray. We always think we are so smart, that we have it all figured out. Looking back through history though, it tells us a much different story about our self. Read the words of people in the past, how confident they were with their new discoveries and their “rational” knowledge. We call these people fools today.

What will people call us in 100 years? What will be our title in 1,000 years? Yes. We are also superstitious fools who know nothing, and are wrong in so many ways we can’t yet see.

I found that this not only applies to the Bible, but much of religious (and LDS) history. Much of it is more fluid, “messier, and more human than most of us imagine,” but that does not necessarily preclude divine involvement. “As soon as the [concepts] are given to human beings — with God’s agreement, and at his initiative — the holiness of the [divine principles] remain, even if mistakes are made when the [principles] are passed on.”

Found this quote from Pope Benedict XVI in his book “Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives”: Talking about probable later additions into the Noel story and how the animals and magi’s insertion into the story served important purposes for the early church (i.e. even the animals and the great kings of the east recognized Jesus as divine) he says, “The aim of the evangelists was not to produce an exhaustive account, but a record of what seemed important for the nascent faith community in the light of the word.” The important thing is not what really happened 2000 years ago, but rather what can happen in the hearts and lives of people right now that believe in these ancient stories to convey a greater truth.

So once again our sacred texts seem to be about as imperfect as the rest of us – yet they also retain vestiges of divinity. Maybe the same can be said about us messed up humans as well, that we are flawed and divine all at the same time.