DiscussMormonism.com

From the General Introduction by W. Gunther Plaut, The Torah, Union of American Hebrew Congregations:

"The Torah is ancient Israel's distinctive record of its search for G-d. It attempts to record the meeting of the human and the Divine, the great moments of encounter. Therefore, the text is often touched by the ineffable Presence. The Torah tradition testifies to a people of extraordinary spiritual sensitivity.God is not the author of the text, the people are; but God's voice may be heard through theirs if we listen with open minds." emphasis added

Viewing my own theological paradigm's through a Judaic lens has been interesting lately. The above statement codifies and provides verbiage to an idea/belief I have previously been unable to communicate.

When applied to the Mormon canon of scripture does anyone disagree or take issue with the quote above?


Big UP!

Lamanite

PS. I posted this on MADB as well. Just curious to see how the boards differ in responses. Perhaps no posts on either board.

I think that could be true with any type of scripture. Scripture has the author representing something to be divine or revelatory.

Just because I don't believe in a literal flood I don't have to condemn the stories of Noah as false. Rather they can be view through the paradigm of "what was the author trying to say"? Maybe it's parable about faith and obedience helping you do the impossible and beating the odds.


Phaedrus

Phaedrus Ut wrote:I think that could be true with any type of scripture. Scripture has the author representing something to be divine or revelatory.

Just because I don't believe in a literal flood I don't have to condemn the stories of Noah as false. Rather they can be view through the paradigm of "what was the author trying to say"? Maybe it's parable about faith and obedience helping you do the impossible and beating the odds.


Phaedrus

It seems the pinnacle of scriptural literalism within Mormonism took place during the time of Bruce and Father-in-Law Smith. Since then I think this type of orthodox literalism has abated some. But tell a Chapel Mormon that the flood was allegorical or even a localized event and watch the muttering and vitriol begin to spew.

big UP!

Lamanite

Lamanite wrote:From the General Introduction by W. Gunther Plaut, The Torah, Union of American Hebrew Congregations:

"The Torah is ancient Israel's distinctive record of its search for God. It attempts to record the meeting of the human and the Divine, the great moments of encounter. Therefore, the text is often touched by the ineffable Presence. The Torah tradition testifies to a people of extraordinary spiritual sensitivity.God is not the author of the text, the people are; but God's voice may be heard through theirs if we listen with open minds." emphasis added

Viewing my own theological paradigm's through a Judaic lens has been interesting lately. The above statement codifies and provides verbiage to an idea/belief I have previously been unable to communicate.

When applied to the Mormon canon of scripture does anyone disagree or take issue with the quote above?


Big UP!

Lamanite

PS. I posted this on MADB as well. Just curious to see how the boards differ in responses. Perhaps no posts on either board.

I haven't read the replies on MAD, but I'll venture my arrogant opinion anyway (that was for LoaP).

Houston, we have a problem. I don't think most LDS will accept this kind of scriptural leeway. For example, you're quite right about this:

It seems the pinnacle of scriptural literalism within Mormonism took place during the time of Bruce and Father-in-Law Smith. Since then I think this type of orthodox literalism has abated some. But tell a Chapel Mormon that the flood was allegorical or even a localized event and watch the muttering and vitriol begin to spew.

Not only that, but if the main apologists for Mormonism accept all of the scriptures as "history", that is, things that really happened as they are related in the scriptural records, there's no room for "allegory" (at least in regard to "historical" events like the flood, not allegories like the Olive Tree in Jacob 5). Because in due time, they would argue, the atonement of Christ could end up being an allegory.

Now I'll venture to MAD to see the replies.

Not only that, but if the main apologists for Mormonism accept all of the scriptures as "history", that is, things that really happened as they are related in the scriptural records, there's no room for "allegory" (at least in regard to "historical" events like the flood, not allegories like the Olive Tree in Jacob 5). Because in due time, they would argue, the atonement of Christ could end up being an allegory.

Now I'll venture to MAD to see the replies.

I wish the story of Lot and his daughters was allegorical. As well as Elisha, the she bear, and the 42 unfortunate kids.

But I seriously wonder about the story of Job. Certain details of that story make me think it is an allegory for several principles of the Gospel.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Lamanite wrote:I wish the story of Lot and his daughters was allegorical. As well as Elisha, the she bear, and the 42 unfortunate kids.

What about 1 Samuel 15? Does that sound like something God would condone? This looks more like a warlike tribe claiming "God told us to do it". Note what the "prophet" Samuel does to King Agag in verse 33.

Lamanite wrote:But I seriously wonder about the story of Job. Certain details of that story make me think it is an allegory for several principles of the Gospel.

I don't know of any biblical scholar worth his salt who thinks this is history.

Ray A wrote:
I don't know of any biblical scholar worth his salt who thinks this is history.

If we keep getting along this well, someone might mistake you for a TBM; or that I'm an Uber Internet Mormon whose on his way out.


I think vs. 33 is where my OP can really be applied. God can be found in the Bible in many ways. All of them beautiful and spiritual. But there can also be found in the text, terrible and confusing things done in the name of God.

As a TBM, it is difficult at times to discern between truth and error in my canon of scripture, and it seems to be more problematic with the Bible. As I make the paradigm shift from, every letter, word, and sentence can be attributed to God; to the idea that men wrote it, but God can still be found within the text as long as I have the Spirit to guide and reveal; then things become a little more clear.

I wonder then if having eyes to see and ears to hear, is the ultimate guide to unlocking the scriptures.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Lamanite wrote:If we keep getting along this well, someone might mistake you for a TBM; or that I'm an Uber Internet Mormon whose on his way out.

I haven't been TBM since 1985, so you figure the rest

Lamanite wrote:I think vs. 33 is where my OP can really be applied. God can be found in the Bible in many ways. All of them beautiful and spiritual. But there can also be found in the text, terrible and confusing things done in the name of God.

As a TBM, it is difficult at times to discern between truth and error in my canon of scripture, and it seems to be more problematic with the Bible. As I make the paradigm shift from, every letter, word, and sentence can be attributed to God; to the idea that men wrote it, but God can still be found within the text as long as I have the Spirit to guide and reveal; then things become a little more clear.

I wonder then if having eyes to see and ears to hear, is the ultimate guide to unlocking the scriptures.

The real question we're asking is: "Who or What is God?"

Here is what "Darwin's Rottweiler" had to say in his debate with Dr. Francis Collins (former head of the Human Genome Project, and a Christian):

DAWKINS: My mind is not closed, as you have occasionally suggested, Francis. My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable--but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed. (Empasis added)

God vs. Science.

Ray A wrote:

Lamanite wrote: I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.[/b] (Empasis added)

God vs. Science.

Funny that you mention Science v Religion:

"...the book [Torah] as a whole...is the word of G-d and not of man. This orthodox or fundamentalist viewpoint maintains, therefore, that if the text says that "G-d created" then this is a fact, for the word of G-d is by definition truth itself...One may not understand everything, but that is a human shortcoming. If modern scientific knowledge appears to contradict the biblical word, then either our present-day science will prove to be in error or we do not understand the Bible properly. This was and is the position of Orthodox Judaism..." Ibid, pg. XVIII, emphasis added

To many non-believers this idea seems like a cop out; but when considering the argument above, and the "either or" argument between Science or religion; it seems to me to be the more rational.

As for Jesus: Taken at face value, it's one of the most ridiculous stories ever told, which is probably why I began my search for a Higher Power in Eastern Philosophy. Nevertheless, when I approached the Christian narrative with an open mind and faith that God would speak if it was His will, something miraculous happened. And I would challenge any assertion that Jesus is in some way "parochial", simply by asserting my own experience. I found something more grand than an incomprehensible Universe; I was introduced to God, and came to know Him. And His Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent being, dwarfs all within the Universe, if not for the simple fact that He created it!

What's even better is that if you didn't have the same experience I did; well then God bless you and whatever brings joy into your life!

Big UP!

Lamanite