Reading the Bible (and the Book of Mormon) literarily

[drumdude]

I think McClellan is speaking mostly to evangelicals who take the Bible very literally, and think that it doesn’t have value (or at least, less value) if the things they take literally aren’t true. The way many of them reject evolution, for example, depends on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

I have long hoped that Mormonism would find a path towards a figurative interpretation of the Book of Mormon. I know many apologists think it’s going to absolutely destroy the religion but I’m really skeptical of that. They’ve found plenty of nuanced arguments to retroactively fix errors in their religion, and I think they’re plenty creative enough to do the same with a less literal interpretation of the Book of Mormon.

It seems some of the more liberal Mopologists are doing just that, and taking a lot of flack from the old guard. I think history will look favorably on apologists like Givens who are blazing that trail, bringing Mormon belief closer to reality.

I've been puzzling for a little bit about this and I really cannot find in my mind an idea for what a figurative interpretation of the Book of Mormon would be.

Let’s take a more extreme example, is it possible to be a follower of Christ if it was discovered he didn’t rise from the dead?

[huckelberry]

I've been puzzling for a little bit about this and I really cannot find in my mind an idea for what a figurative interpretation of the Book of Mormon would be.

Let’s take a more extreme example, is it possible to be a follower of Christ if it was discovered he didn’t rise from the dead?

Drumdude, I think the Jesus story located in the Biblical story carries enough meaning to operate as a myth people could use to find meaning in life and aim at a better way of living. I understand Bart Ehrman has expressed such a view point. There are other people who see it the same way of course but for most people discovering no resurrection would be a serious disappointment leading to much less church. However it is pretty safe as I cannot imagine a way this would be discovered and demonstrated even if true. Believers would continue to believe. I suppose that is much like Book of Mormon believers continuing to believe.

I see in the Book of Mormon the theme of leaving an old society to form a new and hopefully better society, sort of like growing America. It tends to be very negative about people not in the chosen group. I can see that as a mythic theme that continues to influence. It is not a rigid theme, there is warning and hope for both insiders and others which increases the book's value.

[Fence Sitter]

I've been puzzling for a little bit about this and I really cannot find in my mind an idea for what a figurative interpretation of the Book of Mormon would be.

The Community of Christ do not generally believe in a literal interpretation of the Book of Mormon but view it as an inspired record of God's activity with man.

[huckelberry]

I've been puzzling for a little bit about this and I really cannot find in my mind an idea for what a figurative interpretation of the Book of Mormon would be.

The Community of Christ do not generally believe in a literal interpretation of the Book of Mormon but view it as an inspired record of God's activity with man.

Fence Sitter, I have heard that but I do not know what that means to actual people. How, if it is not historical, is it a record? A fictional representation of what God might do but did not? I checked the church web site, it was pretty mum on the issue. The book has Christian sermons and themes. People might find ideas represented that they believe. It fits American Christian ideas more clearly or directly than the Bible often does.

[Fence Sitter]

Fence Sitter, I have heard that but I do not know what that means to actual people. How, if it is not historical, is it a record? A fictional representation of what God might do but did not? I checked the church web site, it was pretty mum on the issue. The book has Christian sermons and themes. People might find ideas represented that they believe. It fits American Christian ideas more clearly or directly than the Bible often does.

I am not a CoC member, but I can hazard a guess. They probably view it as inspired fiction, much like many stories from the Bible are viewed by many Christians. I think the CoC believe that God still communicates directly with and inspires men that are seen to be modern prophets, and that is where modern scripture like the Book of Mormon came from, as well as their D&C. Their D&C has more revelations than the SLC version of Mormonism.

This quote is from Wiki about their view of the Book of Mormon.

In 2001, church president W. Grant McMurray reflected on increasing questions about the Book of Mormon: "The proper use of the Book of Mormon as sacred scripture has been under wide discussion in the 1970s and beyond, in part because of long-standing questions about its historicity and in part because of perceived theological inadequacies, including matters of race and ethnicity."[38]

At the 2007 Community of Christ World Conference, church president Stephen M. Veazey ruled as out of order a resolution to "reaffirm the Book of Mormon as a divinely inspired record". In so doing he stated that "while the Church affirms the Book of Mormon as scripture, and makes it available for study and use in various languages, we do not attempt to mandate the degree of belief or use. This position is in keeping with our longstanding tradition that belief in the Book of Mormon is not to be used as a test of fellowship or membership in the church."[39]

[sock puppet]

Like the Bible, the Book of Mormon has allegories that are in the verbiage explained as such. If the Book of Mormon as a whole is an allegory, then we have allegories in an allegory. I.e., the Book of Mormon is the forerunner to the Cat in the Hat!

[huckelberry]

I agree that is what some LDS apologists do but I don't see it as a double standard, at least not for the two Biblical examples you give. In my view, the value of the Bible is not dependent on the historicity of either of those two stores, while the entirety of Mormonism fails if Nephi is mythical. No historical Book of Mormon means Joseph Smith lied, that or God played the biggest joke ever on a 14 year-old boy. If Smith lied about the origin of the Book of Mormon all subsequent claims by him to divine authority are also illegitimate.

Mormonism functions quite well with a Bible that is part mythical and part historical, though I will grant that what Smith envisioned for Mormonism was a restoration of church that considered the Bible as history.

I think McClellan is speaking mostly to evangelicals who take the Bible very literally, and think that it doesn’t have value (or at least, less value) if the things they take literally aren’t true. The way many of them reject evolution, for example, depends on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

I have long hoped that Mormonism would find a path towards a figurative interpretation of the Book of Mormon. I know many apologists think it’s going to absolutely destroy the religion but I’m really skeptical of that. They’ve found plenty of nuanced arguments to retroactively fix errors in their religion, and I think they’re plenty creative enough to do the same with a less literal interpretation of the Book of Mormon.

It seems some of the more liberal Mopologists are doing just that, and taking a lot of flack from the old guard. I think history will look favorably on apologists like Givens who are blazing that trail, bringing Mormon belief closer to reality.

Drumdude, I find myself thinking a bit like fence sitter here. There is a difference between reading literarily and thinking a story is fiction not history. There is substantial real history in the Bible though that history is highly interpreted in the way author chose to present it. I remember some years back a message board exchange with Brant Gardner on why the natives do not figure significantly in the Nephi immigrants story. Mr. Gardner strongly believes the Book of Mormon is history but he believes literary and faith considerations shaped their story telling into a tale of two opposed groups. That is certainly an apologist using literary reading to approach the Book of Mormon. He certainly did not wish to propose that the Book of Mormon is not real history. I do not think many Mormons wish to leave behind that proof of Jesus that his appearance in the Americas would be.

[huckelberry]

I am posting some of my thoughts raised by the question this thread presents. I am not disagreeing with folks, perhaps indulging my own puzzlement.

I find it easy to view the flood story and garden story in the Bible as fiction. They present ideas of some importance in the garb of a fictional story. They in fact set up basic themes of the Bible. It is fairly straightforward to call the history from kings on down to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem as real history of real people and events. It is not a fiction. It is considerable less clear how to see Exodus. Years ago first reopening the Bible to explore I found myself strongly suspecting that the real story of Moses was a much smaller group of people and that story has been a scaffold upon which other stories and later expansion have been added.

Much more recently I have read William Dever's archeological studies which show that the people of the Old Testament, Israel are not invaders but locals who have gone through serious shifts in location. Coastal cities left and new places established in the high lands. It may not be clear what social turmoil brought that about, but it looks like a serious shift. Dever observed that it is entirely possible that a relatively limited group of folks came from Egypt and exerted influence was the beginning of the story. Dever does not focus on this, after all there is no archeological evidence on the matter.

No physical evidence but there are the dual facts that the people adopted a separate identity and developed stories about Moses and being God's chosen people. Those beliefs and that culture are facts which have some sort of cause. Some version of Exodus, now lost under layers of literary development over centuries is, I think, a good explanation of those facts.

Exodus is much more than an origin story, it is a myth of divine recreation hoping to transform the world from a nasty violent place to a better world. I have considered that it is sort of a participatory story wherein people may join spiritually in the escape and embark on the journey of development. This quality has encouraged its expansion from a story of a minor group of people filled with some religious enthusiasm into the image of a mighty nation marching across the desert. The story expresses and asks our participation as it slips from fact into fiction (operating in both realms).

The Book of Mormon is of course an exodus story. People leave an old corrupted place to find a new start. Whether the book is fact or fiction the believers in the book participated in their own quite real exodus to form a new society. There is perhaps a similarity to the Biblical story wherein the hope for a new kingdom of God is easy to hope for but difficult to actually find and do.

I do not know the answer but I see a question. How small can the real exodus be and still support the edifice of faith and hope?

Adding, My last question could also be stated the other way around. How large could an exodus have been and been left out of Egyptian history and leave no noticeable track in the desert? How large a group would be needed to fit into Israel, perhaps with some force, and become a rally point coalescing the people into a more unified group?