on scripture

I find it interesting that we should consider a book to be the Word of God as though that book should be the final arbiter of truth as if God himself selected placed each jot and tittle.

I am much more comfortable with the term “Holy Writ” or even “Wisdom Literature.” In this way, I can respect and honor the traditions that brought the writings to us without making them binding on everybody.

I view most scripture the same way that parents who leave their teenager or tween kids home question their children about “about happened while the parents were gone”.

You may get some literal “facts”, most of the sibling relationship dynamics are not going to be on display to you (except in a tattling context), and the narrative the kids are telling is a lot about telling you what you want to hear (to protect the guilty and experimental). Except the “characters” in the Bible story are not as well known to you – so you don’t know whether to gauge the “when the kid is downright fibbing” and “what you really need to dig into” aspects that you probably have with your kids.

I do believe that the scriptures contain a whole lot of “justification” of choices that is being masked as “coherent re-telling”.

Note: I know that this comes across as reading history as if we are the “almighty parents” of the now judging the words of the past as if they were “children” – but it’s more about the functional reality that we are held accountable for the information and what we do about it (like parents of kids are) then the kids themselves are.

AND YET…

I believe that the “written word” is important and transfers more information to the next generation. I would not be the person I am today without Robert Fulghum’s essays on “cosmic stardust”, his entire book called “True Love”, the “Itsy-bitsy Spider” song essay, and a bunch of other stuff. He wrote an essay on a suicide attempt that he had where he lived (it functioned as a rather spectacular wakeup call for his soul) and his wife got him a canary that I found to be helpful when people I know are having a super tough time and how messy and disjointed life is.

We stumbled into a Thanksgiving tradition of getting a massive collection of the “good snacks” and watching “Lord of the Rings” Extended versions – all 3 movies mostly as a family (the girls watch the first one without electronics with us). It is a form of “scripture” for us because we want the reminder of the “courage of being good in dark times”. My husband has the important job of managing to keep media-sensitive folks (me mostly) informed about when scary scenes are coming so that we can hide in the giant nest of blankets – and some scenes he fasts-through them. My job is equally important in making sure that the snacks are procured and the blanket nests are properly lined with clean blankets.

SCRIPTURE IS LIKE…

We have inherited a household of furniture from the Jewish past. We must decide what will go into the attic, and what will go into the living room. – Amos Oz

I think scripture is the same way. I think the LDS culture has enshrined the King James Version of the bible in the equivalent of “venerated but never used parlor” with its formal language and antique Biblical scholarship (we have a history of avoiding Christian Biblical scholarship and it shows). But we want scripture that functions as a heavy kitchen island that anchors lives.

… I’m also bothered by the condition the Article of Faith sets on the Bible: the word of God “insofar as it is translated correctly.” As a serious student of languages, I heartily endorse suspicion of translations and advocation referencing original languages as much as possible. So, you would think that since we have the caveat about possibly incorrect translation of the Bible, the Church would therefore have many enthusiastically learning Greek and Hebrew. Such study doesn’t involve any kind of classified information; anyone who is so inclined can take up the study of those languages. But over a lifetime in the Church, I’ve met only a small handful of people who have shown any interest in Biblical languages, most of them at BYU. Some churches even offer classes in NT Greek. I’ve brushed up the Greek I took at BYU in order to read the NT in the original, but I always feel that I ought not to make comments on the Greek in Gospel Doctrine classes. It’s not just that I don’t wish to be seen as a snob (or, heaven forbid, an “intellectual,” among the worst of Mormon pejoratives). I think I’d be seen as lacking in faith (which is definitely NOT true), because if I were really faithful, I would consult the “Inspired Translation” instead of the Greek. Don’t even get me started on the “Inspired Translation” (more like the Inspired Plagiarism). I’m also not sure why the Church adheres so strictly to the King James translation, since its accuracy is doubted as well as all other translations. (Actually the King James NT is reasonably accurate, the OT much less so; the King James scholars obviously had a better grasp of Greek than of Hebrew.) One drawback to adhering doggedly to the KJV is the archaisms that can throw readers off. For example, where one of the epistles says that one of the qualifications of a bishop is that he be a man of “good conversation,” which most modern readers would take to mean that he should be a smooth talker. But in early modern English, “conversation” meant something more like “behavior,” in other words, he should comport himself well. There are many other examples that could be cited.

I would appreciate the thoughts of others, and hearing about your approaches to scripture.

The end goal of the church isn’t “Biblical Scholarship”. If the church has an “end goal” (aside from survival of the fittest church organization), it is “perfect the saints / proclaim the gospel / redeem the dead / [and sometimes “to care for the poor and needy” since 2009]. I will admit that “bible study” could be catalogued in the “perfection” banner as a skill to be acquired (in theory), or that the Bible is usually a source of “gospel knowledge” – so it would it be good to understand what it says.

But Joseph Smith had the Bible and in and of itself, the Bible wasn’t “the tool of the Restoration” that the Book of Mormon and the other latter-day scriptures claim to have. JS was selling (and giving away to a degree) the “oh shiny” of new scripture, of a restoration of old truths taken to the next level. The other Bible-based and Bible-forward dominations are organizations competing against the LDS organization for the attention and allegiance of humans.

I once looked into using free Yale Bible lectures online as a way to distract part of my brain and stimulate it as well – I like studying stuff and I figured “it would easy because I already know so much”. Hah.

One of the best examples of the “our culture doesn’t pick up on what the Bible actually said” is a book called “Misreading Scripture”. It’s not LDS – but it is a stab in the dark to look at what our Western-thought-based approach may be missing from the Pre-Protestant reformation culture. If you decide to pick it up, start/re-start a topic on it and I will definitely add my thoughts.

I love the thoughts on “the final word” here.

And I am not sure that we have even have the “final question” properly scoped out:)

I agree with Nibbler that at least in some sense scripture can be whatever inspires or moves me. “Out of the best books” sort of stuff, but in 2025 books has to include other media. And of course there are Latter-day Saints who also consider words of modern prophets scripture, and some who even consider all that is said in GC or all that is printed in the Liahona scripture. I’m definitely not there with those because they don’t all (or even mostly) inspire me or move me or speak to me.

But I think you’re mostly referring to the LDS standard works. I think the standard works are mostly allegorical, and very much like later fables – they’re mostly stories with a moral. Some of them much more so than others. Here’s my view (since you asked):

The Bible (OT & NT): I agree that the King James people did a pretty good job in “translating correctly.” From what I understand modern scholars mostly agree with that assessment. Like you I find the Bible more engaging than the others, and I am particularly fond of the four gospels. If we’re supposed to feast upon the words of Christ, that’s where they are. There are definitely passages from the KJV I like because of their poetry, but I mostly prefer newer translations because of the more modern English which does affect understanding (some words have different meanings now than in King James times, and carrying that even further some word have different meanings now than Joseph Smith times). I am particularly fond of the New Revised Standard Version and that’s generally my go-to (often the New Oxford Annotated Bible). I also reference Young’s Literal Translation, Adam Clarke’s Commentary, and a direct translation from Greek that I have. Bottom line here is I think the OT is mostly just stories (some based around historical events) with some moral objectives – but I generally do not like the OT version of God (or some of the writer’s interpretations thereof). I believe the NT to be embellished and while some of the stuff probably happened, most is again the interpretation or desire of the writer. I hope Jesus at least did and said some of it. The Acts are probably mostly like the OT, and the epistles are opinions and interpretations of the writers which I don’t always agree with.

The Book of Mormon: Again, a collection of stories with a moral purpose. I do not believe it is what it’s claimed to be, no Nephites or Lamanites, no real ancient Americans. I’m not sure the gold plates were real, but I am pretty sure Joseph never “read” them. I am open to the idea that Joseph was inspired, but I’m also open to the idea he made it up (I believe he was a genius). Nevertheless, it is a good book about God and Jesus Christ which can and does bring people closer to them. I haven’t read it in years, although I do read from it sometimes. I rarely reference it in talks, particularly if the same or similar reference is found in the Bible (which is almost always the case).

Doctrine & Covenants: As a new church member long ago I liked the D&C because of its readability. It’s more likely that some of that stuff really happened, but I also see a theme of Joseph wanting something to happen or someone to do something and that coincidentally becomes “Thus saith the Lord.” The stuff about how the church should be organized and run is fine for reference, and I think Joseph developed most of that himself with minimal Devine inspiration (although as we’ve previously discussed, inspiration can come from many places). I also believe Joseph was somewhat deluded into believing all or most of his thoughts were God’s thoughts.

Pearl of Great Price: This one has a lot going on. I have Terry Givens’ book about it but I have not read it. I don’t believe the Book of Moses to be anything more than Joseph’s commentary/interpretation of stuff. I don’t consider it scripture. The Book of Abraham clearly isn’t what it’s claimed to be. Joseph could have been inspired, but I toss it in with the Book of Moses – not scripture and not worth my effort. Matthew, again Joseph’s interpretation, and again not scripture. Joseph’s history is OK, although I prefer an earlier version (1832). I do believe in the first vision at least to some extent, although it is what it’s claimed to be – a vision (and probably very open to Joseph’s interpretation). The Articles of Faith are also fine, but I do believe they are actually a creed and I don’t necessarily agree with all of them.

The other thing I wanted to mention is: if Joseph Smith somehow made up the Book of Mormon imagine the Chutzpah.

If you’re wondering, the definition of Chutzpah:

Chutzpah is a Hebrew word that has been adopted into Yiddish and then English. Chutzpah has

been defined as audacity, insolence, impudence, gall, brazen nerve, effrontery, incredible guts, presumption and arrogance.

Yet something essential about chutzpah is missing from all these words.

I can’t imagine doing something like that & it is lasting this long without credible challenges. Maybe I just don’t know what the

credible challenges are or have been.

To echo others, for now we see through a glass, darkly.

That goes for everyone that’s written a verse, copied a verse, translated a verse, interpreted a verse. Everything that we call scripture is processed through an imperfect filter. Both when creating scripture and when consuming scripture.

I also wanted to revisit the idea that we don’t read scripture, scripture reads us. There are enough contradictions, nuance, and wiggle room found in scripture such that we can use it to justify just about any position. What I mean when I say that scripture reads us is that the positions we choose to justify through use of the scripture reveal our nature more than it reveals the scripture’s nature.