- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I wonder if any of you have experienced this: Those of us who have grown up LDS were taught a certain interpretation of what the scriptures mean. As I have grown, talked with others, and read the scriptures without a Bible Commentary in front of me, I see that the meaning they taught does not always line up with the meaning I read. Sometimes it felt like the meaning was sitting there right in front of my eyes, but I didn’t see it because I was being guided in a different direction. I grew up going to seminary and Sunday school, and these programs can be a good thing – but sometimes I think it’s better to stray off the path (interpretation) that they give you, and follow what seems to make sense to you.
I know that many of you have stepped outside the traditional LDS way of thinking. How many of you have gone back to the scriptures in this state of mind, particularly the Bible, and found that it presents new meaning to you? How many of you have returned to the LDS interpretation after something like this?
One example of my own experience is – Do we pray
toJesus? (I brought up my reasons in another thread if you want to know why I think we do (or should) in a Biblical context). What has been your experience with reading the scriptures outside – and inside – of the LDS context?
I have found that most scriptures, especially the Bible, can be read as saying lots of different and conflicting things – and that, in reality, they often DO say different and conflicting things. In some cases, I think the “orthodox” Mormon reading of some verses and passages is quite strained – but I also see lots of cases where the orthodox Mormon reading makes way more sense at the big picture level than any other reading. That’s one reason why I have to rely on my own understanding of scripture – influenced by others, of course, but ultimately up to me.
MapleLeaf this is a very good question, thanks for bringing it up. For myself I am finding myself immersed in the Old Testament right now but rather than LDS sources for information I am up past my nostrils in academic, Documentary Hypothesis, form criticism, canonical criticism etc. Yes all of these outlooks almost all assume that there is no such thing as prophecy or even God but they do look very closely at the text itself and that is wonderful. One thing is very clear to me at this stage and that is that the we should be dumping the King James Version of the Bible simply because we know so much more now about both the ancient world including Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and even Ugaritic which that group of translators had no access to. In many ways of course the KJV influenced how Joseph Smith “translated” (transmitted is probably a better word) the Book of Mormon so the cadence of the Elizabethan English language will always be with us.
So for my preparation for teaching the Old Testament in Sunday School this upcoming year my base text is going to be the Jewish Study Bible recommended by Prof. Hayes of the Yale Course on the Bible that has a bit of a thread here. I won’t drag that into class of course (well maybe I will) and we will use the KJV as the core document but I will use the more current translations fairly often to illustrate some ideas.
So though I am moving outside of the LDS standard I do find myself often saying to these authors “What is so hard about believing in God?” (I always talk to authors when I am reading something, I’m sure they appreciate it
😆 ) and understanding that as nonbelievers they HAVE to decide that if Isaiah makes a prediction about conditions after the Babylonian captivity (when he was living at the time of the Assyrian crisis) that must mean that someone else wrote that material and inserted it into his book. So though I am gaining (I think) a lot of insight the LDS perspective and my own testimony of revelation still controls what I am reading.I’ve studied the scriptures throughout this journey and it is part of what helped me on my way. Reading them now (actually studying) is a different ball game. I try to ignore the chapter headings that were added by Parly Pratt, or just use them to see what he thought about that particular chapter. I’m not beholden to the LDS interpretation anymore. I like to use the original BoM and BoC to see what changes have been made.
I actually really like the KJV of the Bible. However, I have purchased the JS Inspired Version and the New Revised Standard Version which contains the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books, too. I actually use them all when studying a topic. Sometimes I’ll even look online to get historical and interpretive information.
One of the most profound things I discovered (my own personal revelation) is that our own scriptures condemn us as a church. We obviously don’t learn that in church and only one president of the church has even mentioned our condemnation since JS that I am aware of.
I think in many cases, church members scan the scriptures looking for a verse at a time that supports their ideas or teachings, which takes things out of context and limits the understanding of what is really there. I think this is because the mormon church puts an emphasis on continued revelation and modern prophets and teachings, and so we can let go of putting all trust in just the written word. Compared to other religions, that means we understand it less literally or try to understand it less literally, but just pick out the sections that support our teachings and skip over the Song of Solomon type scriptures that we don’t want to or care to take time to understand. I also think this is reinforced in the 8th article of faith. We take from it what we want, and dismiss other things that may not be translated correctly. We also spend more time on BoM and D&C and POGP and conference talks, which just means there is less time to really go through the Bible in more detail.
Like Bill, I love non-LDS commentaries on the Bible. I have learned so much. I have purchased many of the “Mysteries of the Bible” Series, an old cable TV show from A&E. They quote Jewish and Christian scholars, and really teach some cool stuff. I also recommend the Yale course that Valoel posted a while back. I think that many of the things I have learned are compatible with LDS beliefs. Learning from these different sources has really energized my scripture study. I still want to read the Apocryphal books, and I have about 5 different versions of bibles now. Yes. I see a lot more there now. This started a long time ago for me. More recently though, I see the scriptures as stories. And these stories are important and valued by our culture for their ability to act as a mirror for our soul. I see new things in the scriptures, but I think it is more about me seeing something new inside of me than the fact that I finally understand the “correct” interpretation. The stories (scriptures) are the vehicle that mediates this communication with the divine within me. I started collecting different German Bible translations while I was a missionary in Germany (a good 20 years ago). This was a new and exciting discovery — that there were so many different translations, and they had all been influenced or created by people with different ideas, views and agendas. It was very interesting to me to see how influential the differences could be.
The Bible commentaries in other versions are often very good. I just picked up a New Revised Standard Version Bible from a used book store. I had been searching for a decent copy for a while. It has some cool footnotes. I also picked up a New American Bible (Catholic version) this summer that has some of the best commentary I have ever seen worked right in to the pages and footnotes.
I agree with Ray. The LDS interpretations of passages are both insightful and lacking at times. I think part of Joseph Smith’s purpose in life was crafting resolutions to age old problems in Christian Theology. Some of his solutions are beautiful and very satisfying to me. One interpretation in particular that is very unique to Mormonism is to “Christianize” all the old prophets. It is commonly taught that the Church has always been the same (like God), unchanging. So by inference, all the old testament prophets were really Christians. We see this in particular in the Book of Mormon. While this is a fascinating way to view it. I am not sure it is really there in the Old Testament. I don’t think the Moses of the Old Testament really seems to know anything about Jesus Christ. Just my $0.02
Valoel wrote:One interpretation in particular that is very unique to Mormonism is to “Christianize” all the old prophets. It is commonly taught that the Church has always been the same (like God), unchanging. So by inference, all the old testament prophets were really Christians. We see this in particular in the Book of Mormon. While this is a fascinating way to view it. I am not sure it is really there in the Old Testament. I don’t think the Moses of the Old Testament really seems to know anything about Jesus Christ. Just my $0.02
I don’t think it is at all unique to Mormonism to Christianize the Old Testament prophets. Isn’t that what Christians have been doing since the first century? Jesus is seen to be the fulfillment of the Old Testament Messianic prophecy. All of the early Christians (with the exception of small groups like the Marcionites) taught from the writings of the Old Testament prophets. Paul even makes the connection that the patriarch Abraham was “saved by faith” in passages like Romans 4.
Were the Old Testament prophets really “Christians” in the sense that they would have accepted Jesus’ teachings? Or would the idea of Jesus be completely foreign to Moses and others?
Looking at the Old Testament as a whole, in which God seeks reconciliation with his people through symbolic temple practices, all the while promising a future date in which Messiah would once-and-for-all make intercession for sinners, it is clear that some sort of Christ was expected. If anyone was to fulfill that expectation, it was most likely Jesus Christ. There are many websites which document the Old Testament Messianic prophecy and link them with the New Testament fulfillment in Jesus Christ.
Moses may not have known these details in his day, nor Abraham or Adam, but God had different priorities for them to attend to, and as Paul says, their faith was “credited to them as righteousness” even before Jesus came to earth. Their teachings pointed to the coming Messiah, and never contradicted Jesus’ message. From what I can tell, they seem to be in strong harmony with one another.
MapleLeaf, I think you make an excellent point. It is a wonder if Moses would have accepted Jesus, though there is a quote in the NT where Jesus says that Abraham saw his day. It seems to imply that Abraham would have accepted Jesus ministry. Now, I guess we can debate whether Jesus said this, (as the Jesus Seminar debates), but I expect that most Christians would accept the Christianized version of the Old Testament. What I meant by my comment about the Christianized OT prophets is the view that they had the whole picture. They were really followers of Christ back then, like in the Book of Mormon where they actually speak Christ’s name and describe his ministry before it happened. It is very explicit in the BoM. I think it seems more interpretive in the Bible, meaning Christians later imposed their new understanding like an overlay on the old prophets. I just don’t think someone like Moses (if there was such a person) was consciously trying to create a vast tradition that pointed to Jesus Christ symbolically. He just couldn’t tell anyone because it was a mysterious secret that they would not understand (or something like that). Our LDS interpretation of the material in the OT could be right. I just don’t think it is necessarily as explicit as it seems.
Valoel wrote:What I meant by my comment about the Christianized OT prophets is the view that they had the whole picture. They were really followers of Christ back then, like in the Book of Mormon where they actually speak Christ’s name and describe his ministry before it happened. It is very explicit in the BoM. I think it seems more interpretive in the Bible, meaning Christians later imposed their new understanding like an overlay on the old prophets. I just don’t think someone like Moses (if there was such a person) was consciously trying to create a vast tradition that pointed to Jesus Christ symbolically. He just couldn’t tell anyone because it was a mysterious secret that they would not understand (or something like that).
Our LDS interpretation of the material in the OT could be right. I just don’t think it is necessarily as explicit as it seems.
I agree with Valoel. Mormon theology seems to emphasize that Christ was known throughout all the dispensations (see the explicit references to Christ in BoM) and that God’s church has always been the same (Adam, Moses, etc. received the same temple endowment, were taught about Christ, etc.). The Church seems to teach that evil and designing men took these truths about Christ out of the OT bible to make it confusing, but if those truths were adquately restored, the Bible would read just like the BoM with all the references to Christ. Early Christians were reinterpreting the Bible to mean Christ in its old passages, but I don’t think the original writers of the OT really were thinking about Christ when they wrote it.
A good counter example is the interpretation of the OT by Jews, who reject all the Messianic interpretations of the OT as referring to Christ. I think Jewish interpretation of the OT is probably closer to the original intent than Christian readings of the OT (although I’m sure many of there interpretations are no closer to the original intent than Christian readings, even if they are different).
I can see that Mormonism has “Christianized” (or “Mormonized” for that matter) the Old Testament prophets. But I don’t think it is based on mere imagination. I think it is clear from the Old Testament writings that the people expected a great prophet, a messiah, God in the flesh – in short, the Christ. More importantly, they seemed to expect him right around the time that Jesus appeared on the scene. Let’s start with Moses, since he was mentioned in a few posts above as having no idea about Jesus. Moses says: “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him… The LORD said to me: “What they say is good. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.” (Deuteronomy 18:15, 17-18)
Now let’s move forward to Daniel – this is where it pinpoints Jesus Christ more specifically. “Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times. And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself…Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.” (Daniel 9:25-27)
If we go with the idea that a prophetic day is a literal year (some people use Ezekiel 4:6 to support this), then we can determine the literal amount of time that is to pass until Messiah would come, and when he would be “cut off”. 70 weeks (at 7 days a week) means 490 days = 490 years after the edict to rebuild Jerusalem.
Read on in the Old Testament a little further and you’ll find Ezra, who was given the charge by God “to rebuild the house of our God and repair its ruins, and he has given us a wall of protection in Judah and Jerusalem.” (Ezra 9:9). This event is dated approximately 457 BC. If you add 490 years that gives us exactly 33 AD, which is the approximate year of Jesus’ crucifixion!
Maybe they didn’t know Jesus Christ by that name (they knew him as “I AM”, “God with us”, etc.), but I think a good case can be made to say that the Old Testament prophets are Christians in the sense that they expected the Christ. And another equally good case can be made to suggest that that Christ would be Jesus.
Just before my former bishop was about to give me a Priesthood blessing for my health problems the other day, he told me that God speaks to us through the scriptures (not directly when we pray) and that all the answers to my prayers were in the scriptures. I told him that I do read the scriptures and have read them many times having served a mission and taught gospel doctrine for 4 years. I told him that, ‘yes there are many answers in the scriptures, but sometimes I have more questions than answers when I read them. I told him that the scriptures tell us to come unto Christ during our tribulations and that he will comfort us, but I have had no such comfort feelings during this difficult illness time. I told him that sometimes the scriptures seem so contridictory to me. LIke they talk about Christ came to bring comfort and peace to us and then they say, “No, he came to bring a sword and eminty.” Members love to give pat answers and accepted interpretations of the scriptures. It is so frustrating in Gospel Doctrine class sometimes when people give their interpretations of the scriptures. They just give the pat answer they have been taught all their life. When I challenge that interpretation or give a different one, it totally upsets the teacher because he does not want to get off the track of his lesson. Nevertheless, I always get some thinkers who come to me after class and tell me they have wondered about that too and are glad I brought it up. When I taught gospel doctrine, I always challenged the class by asking how certain scriptures relate to their every day lives. Unless, they do, what good are they? Good thoughts, Bridget! It’s pretty much 50/50 for me when reading the Scriptures as to whether it will be an ‘Aha!’ moment as I understand something more clearly, or a moment of sheer frustration as I feel like I’m going backwards in my understanding. But as I look at the progress I’ve made in the long run, I think for every five steps back, there have been seven steps forward. Still a long way to go, I’m certain, but progress happens! One part of the process for me is simply familiarity with the scriptures – by reading and re-reading passages so that it stays in your memory – then when you’re reading one passage you can think back to the related passage that you read a week ago and understand where they all fit together in this big puzzle.
I always like the teachers who step outside of the prescribed lesson with their own thoughts and challenges – it’s less cookie-cutter that way.
I think God expects us at some point to cast away the lens through which we interpret the scriptures. Maybe at the point where we realize the lens contains other people’s interpretations. I think God gave us the scriptures to counteract the creeping of untruths into the church. But if no one questions the popular or cultural interpretations, then the advantage is lost.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.