Mormonism and the Bible
I realized that in my last post about the Bible, I forgot to write some things I wanted to say. Like how Mormonism has a strange relationship with the Bible. Because of the 8th Article of Faith, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God" (I typed that from memory; I think I got it right), Mormons are kind off the hook in some respects. For example, you could take a passage in the Bible you don't like or agree with (hmm, like slaughtering every man, women, child, and animal; or sacrificing daughters; or destroying gay people) and throw it out with a "it must not have been translated correctly."
Joseph Smith seemed to have done this with the crazy story of Lot offering up his daughters to the Sodomites in place of the male visitors (as if it's better to rape women than men?). "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof" (KJV Genesis 19:8). In the Smith translation, the scripture reads "And Lot said, Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, plead with my brethren that I may not bring them out unto you; and ye shall not do unto them as seemeth good in your eyes;" (JST Genesis 19:13). Smith's version certainly makes Lot sound like a nicer dad (we'll not get into what happens later).
I've seen Mormons discount stories with other morally questionable passages, like the story of youth getting eaten by bears because they teased Elisha about being bald (see 2 Kings 2: 23-24). When you believe the Bible is true only insofar as it was translated correctly, it's easy to decide that the whole bear story was a fairy tale, or at least told incorrectly. God wouldn't do that. And yet I've seen even worse stories held up as absolutely factual, like God telling the Hebrews to slaughter every living thing in wherever-it-was (see, I really need to improve my Bible literacy). I mean, why not give God the benefit of the doubt that He (ahem) really is benevolent and decide that particular passage was an after-the-fact justification for massacre, or that the incident didn't even happen at all?
I would expect some Mormons to also take the as-far-as-it-was-translated-correctly clause as an easy way to reconcile modern science with the early stories of the Bible. You know, like the 7-day creation, Noah's flood, the parting of the Red Sea, 900-year lifespans, the Tower of Babel as the origin of diversity of languages, etc. It'd be pretty easy to dismiss these as mythology if you don't have to believe every word of the Bible as Truth. And yet the party line is that these things did literally happen (I'm sure there are many Mormons who don't believe these literally, and many are able to handle the cognitive dissonance of believing both evolution and creation, for example).
I suspect that one of the reasons Mormons generally don't dismiss those stories as mythology is Joseph Smith's literal belief in them--and his placing of mythological characters and events in prominent, literal events. Noah's flood must be literal, for example, because prophets said the flood was the baptism of the earth (for example Smith, Joseph Fielding, Jr., Doctrines of Salvation (Salt Lake City: BookCraft, 1955), Vol.2, p.320.). And if the Tower of Babel is just mythology, then the story of the Jaredites in the Book of Mormon would have to be mythology too--so if you believe the Book of Mormon is true, you must believe the Tower of Babel is literal. Then there's Joseph's assertion that Abraham was a real person who wrote a real book and hid it among Egyptian papyri while he was really in Egypt. And while I've on the rare occasion heard Mormons refer to the temple version of the creation as symbolic, it's safe to bet that a large proportion take Adam and Eve's existence as quite literal. Joseph certainly did--he reportedly spoke to not only Adam (aka Michael), but also Gabriel (aka Noah), Raphael (D&C 128:20-21), Seth, Enoch, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Journal of Discources 17:374; 18:325-26; 21:65, 94, 161; 23:48). So it's safe to say that Mormons are supposed to take those men's respective Bible stories as real.
Which is unfortunate.
3 comments:
I don't ever remember being told that the bible was to be taken literately. I do remember being told that it should be believed. I now see the fine line between the two, but its interesting that its not taught universally as one way or the other. This is probably why you would get differing answers from members if you asked them if they believed the bible was to be taken literately or just symbolically. Interesting enough, the bible is pretty sad either way.
Its interesting that, with the confusion surrounding the bible, as it relates to all of the religions that beleive that their interpretation is the correct one, that Joseph Smith couldn't have re-translated it perfectly after he finished the BOM. People say that it only took JS a few months to actually translate the BOM, and he didn't even use the BOM. If thats the case, couldn't JS translate the Bible, without all of the original texts, and make it so accurate that there would be no more confusion?
Yet, confusion is the great tool of the almighty. For if the scriptures were not confusing, we wouldn't need faith to beleive. Also, we wouldn't need learned men to teach us what we don't understand because they are more faithful than us and they somehow know what the scriptures mean.
I could keep going and going, but I'll stop here. Good post, though. I've been having some of the same thoughts lately.
FTA~
I stop by your blog frequently (I think I have posted a couple comments) and today, when I stopped by, coupled with reading something at JM Tewkesbury, I got all riled about The Church. That hasn't happened for a long, long time.
I posted a question in my blog today in the post called Wonderin' and, if you have never been over to my blog, I would invite you to stop by and read it. I would be curious to hear your answer to the question I pose...
Thanks, btw, for posting your story. I have taken the time this evening to read EVERY SINGLE post of your introduction, pre-exit and exit story. I appreciate the time you have invested in sharing YOUR truths. Thank you.
With love,
Angie
In regard to "we believe the Bible as far as it is translated correctly", Jehovah's Witnesses behave/believe similarly.
One of the few experiences I had Bible-bashing as a missionary was with a JW missionary. For each concept from the Bible that I raised to him, his response would be that my Bible wasn't correctly translated, and thus my beliefs and understanding of the concept were incorrect. After hearing this a few times, I told him that if we couldn't even agree on a translation of the Bible, there wasn't much else we could discuss, and wished him well.
Post a Comment