Bible Dictionary not doctrine

I notice there is nothing in the bible dictionary about what “doctrine” is. :think:

Interesting. I’m glad you brought this up, DJ.

I’ve never noticed or been pointed to the statement before. Yet, as I look back on it, I don’t think that even in my all-in days I would have said it was doctrine. But then, I always had a pretty narrow view of doctrine; being immutable truths of the Gospel as revealed by God. My recollection is that I thought of the BD as more “inspired scholarship”… in other words, scholarly study that was either performed by or accepted by the Church, and therefore carrying a higher rating on the correctness scale that simple secular scholarship. I’ve occasionally heard the BD quoted in talks over the years and never thought anything to be out-of-place.

The BD isn’t perfect for sure. For example, it says Paul wrote Hebrews, which is almost certainly not the case, but at least it does acknowledge that “some have questioned whether or not it was written by Paul.” It clearly has the LDS view in mind (no surprise).

One thing I will say: man, when the new edition of the Bible first came out in 1979 it was truly awesome. Prior to that edition, we used an off-the-shelf printing of the KJV, and it had extremely sparse cross-references, no notes, and an index/dictionary that was probably 25 pages or so. The new version of the Bible had:

– The BD and Topical Guide. Together, this addition was, and remains, by far the best self-study tool regarding the Scriptures that the Church has published. It was important, because up until that time, the only similar work was BRM’s Mormon Doctrine. Although the BD/TG would take a long time to supplant the other work, it did eventually do so. It enabled access to the scriptures in a way not previously possible, and the TG spanned all the standard works.

– JST – This was the first time that any of this information was made readily available to the membership. Prior to that, the best way to get that was to purchase the Holy Scriptures from the RLDS Church, and at that time, that was not something members of the Church would have considered. Determining what JS had really intended in his T was the work of Robert J. Matthews. In fact, his book “A Plainer Translation – Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible” is a great book for understanding this nearly forgotten undertaking by JS, which he started within just a few months of organizing the Church. This is a major reason why my own belief is that JS thought of himself as a legitimate prophet.

– Footnotes. Brief explanations in the footnotes, such as clarifying Hebrew or Greek terms, or snippets from the JST were huge helps, remembering that before, there were zero notes.

– Cross-references. This was really a big deal. They did a really phenomenal job with this massive project. Before this edition, an entire page of the bible might have two or three cross-references… might.

– Chapter Headings. These were largely the work of BRM. In fact, most of the chapter headings in the NT were pulled word-for-word out of his “Doctrinal New Testament Commentary”. But that work was superior to MD, IMO, and BRM did a nice job with the chapter headings, which do give important context.

– Much improved Maps.

I have to applaud the Church for its effort in taking this on, and especially because the purpose was to unleash self-study.

A couple of years later, the Church published a new version of the Triple Combination. It wasn’t nearly as impressive because it didn’t have to cover so much ground. There was (and is) a totally unnecessary index that is a less-complete version of the TG found in the Bible. In fact, it’s so unneeded, that I kind of wish the Church would come out with a new printing that had the comprehensive Topical Guide included with the TC and left the Bible with no index. That would make the Bible a lot easier to handle than it is in its current version. The new Triple Combination, though, did have much better chapter headings, cross-references, and detailed explanation of each D&C Section, so it was still a very important addition to the… canon. One note, when the TC was first published in this form in 1981, the BofM was still just the BofM. It wasn’t until late 1982 that the subtitle, “Another Testament of Jesus Christ” was added to the title page, so for a very brief time, the modern version of the TC/BofM was printed without it.

Yep, it is a wonderful resource – except when it is wrong.

In that way, at least, it is like the scriptures.

I use the BD all the time. It’s a resource. I’m not usually looking for an “authoritative doctrine” source on everything.

I usually read something or am preparing lessons and just want to know a little more about the topic. I don’t turn a blind eye to anything not “doctrinal”. Besides…I’ve come to not really know much of what doctrine is in this church…so I take it all with a grain of salt.

For example…

I don’t know much about Aaron, was studying about the Aaronic Priesthood in a lesson…thought I’d just check it out for more info…

On Mount Sinai Moses received directions about the appointment of Aaron and his four sons, Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar, to a priesthood that is known as the Aaronic Priesthood (Ex. 28:1–4; 29; D&C 84:18, 26–27).

…

Aaron died on Mount Hor at the age of 123 (Num. 20:22–29; 33:38–39).

Good to know. I actually didn’t remember Aaron’s sons a part of that…so…that’s a great resource help in my studies. Is it doctrine that Aaron was 123? Not sure…because “doctrine” is not really about those facts…so…again…BD not doctrine but a study reference.

Now that I’m perusing the BD, let me look up another topic…

Divorce

Permitted under some circumstances because of the hardness of the people’s hearts, but as explained by Jesus, “from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:3–12).

…is it doctrine that those who get divorced are because of the hardness of their hearts? faithful humble people stay married?

…nah. That’s not doctrine. Just BD stuff. That doesn’t apply to me…Movin along…

I’m sure glad the BD isn’t doctrine in this church!

They’ve got their loophole, in case it gets out-dated or changed.

It’s simple and pure and perfect (except for the parts it isn’t)

I’d say that’s obvious. But the sign of a bad talk at any given place is often when it refers to some dictionary or another.

I don’t necessarily think it’s wrong to define words for people. I have found that most people don’t actually know the meaning of words like “prodigal.” I actually don’t have a problem with a youth speaker saying “I looked up faith in the dictionary and the definition is….” because it shows me that they put some effort into their talk and at least attempted to understand their topic instead of just parroting their Primary teachers. I have referenced the Bible Dictionary in talks (“According tot he Bible Dictionary….”) but sometimes do so because what I am about to say expands on or even sometimes contradicts to an extent what is there. Other times I just say things like “Prodigal means wasteful” because I don’t see the need to reference (I’m not writing a college thesis when I write a talk).

For those looking for an alternative to the LDS BD, I have both of these and find them to be good resources:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195288750

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006078685X

They both use the NRSV and have commentary throughout. Each may have a new version, but these are the versions I have.

I got the Oxford Annotated Bible as a Christmas gift, and like OON I recommend it (it was on my wish list, I have used the public library’s copy before). There is a fourth edition on Amazon, I believe mine came from Barnes and Noble.