FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Common issues in interpretation and proof-texting
Revision as of 01:22, 19 July 2018 by SpencerMarsh (talk | contribs)
- REDIRECTTemplate:Test3
Mormon interpretation of the scriptures
Jump to details:
- Question: Why does the LDS Church teach that man first existed as spirits in heaven when 1 Corinthians 15:46 says that the physical body comes before the spiritual?
- Question: How can one best read and understand the scriptures?
Scriptures of the Church of Jesus Christ |
|
Nature of scripture |
|
Interpretation of scripture |
|
Introduction
The challenge of Latter-day Saint scripture and an open canon to the rest of the christian world means that there is a long history of polemics targeted at the Church of Jesus Christ. These are well-worn "chestnuts" and standard biblical issues that have been repeatedly "asked and answered" for Latter-day Saints over nearly two centuries.
Index
Answers
Why does the Church teach that man first existed as spirits in heaven when 1 Corinthians 15:46 says that the physical body comes before the spiritual?
When Latter-day Saints speak of God creating our "spirit bodies," we do not mean the glorified, physical "spiritual body" of the resurrected
When Latter-day Saints speak of God creating our "spirit bodies," we do not mean the glorified, physical "spiritual body" of the resurrected. We refer to God's role as our Heavenly Father before our mortal lives.
Biblical statements indicate that God is the father of our spirits and we were known to him before our birth (e.g., Jeremiah 1:5). This is a separate doctrine from the doctrine of a glorious resurrection, which is clearly Paul's topic.
It is unfortunate that critics find it necessary to distort and twist the clear meaning of scripture in an attempt to make the Latter-day Saints "offenders for a word."
In context, Paul is clearly talking about the physical resurrection from the dead
In context, Paul is clearly talking about the physical resurrection from the dead. For example, earlier in the chapter he has written:
- 12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
- 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
- 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
- 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
- 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
- ...
- 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
- 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
- ...
- 35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
- 36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die... (1 Corinthians 15:12-36, selections as indicated by verse numbers)
Paul clearly believes, then, that the physical body with which we die will be resurrected.
He then tells the Saints that:
- 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
- 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
- 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption...
- 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
- 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. (1 Corinthians 15:40-43.)
The "spiritual body" to which Paul refers is the resurrected physical body which has been glorified
The "spiritual body" to which Paul refers is the resurrected physical body which has been glorified.
- 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
- 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. (1 Corinthians 15:52-53.)
The "natural" body is the weak, corruptible mortal body that is "sown in weakness." The "spiritual body" is the glorified, resurrected body "raised in power." But, this does not mean that it is not also a physical, or corporeal body—Paul has just spent several verses insisting upon the reality of Christ's resurrection, and using Him as a model for the resurrection of the Saints. And, clearly Jesus' body was tangible and physical following the resurrection:
- 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have''.
- 40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
- 41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
- 42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. (Luke 24:39-42, (emphasis added).)
Critical sources |
|
How is John 4:24 used as a proof-text by critics of the Church's doctrine of God having a body?
Critics read into the passage what is not there. This passage in John does not assert anything about God's corporeal nature or lack thereof
King James Version
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4꞉24
Other translation(s)
God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (NASB)
God is Spirit, and only by the power of his Spirit can people worship him as he really is." (TEV)
God is Spirit, and those who worship God must be led by the Spirit to worship him according to the truth. (CEV)
Critics read into the passage what is not there. This passage in John does not assert anything about God's corporeal nature or lack thereof. The Latter-day Saint belief that God is an embodied spirit is perfectly consistent with the passage in question and critics are in error to insist that the passage must be interpreted as "God is a disembodied spirit."
Use or misuse by Church critics
This verse is used as a proof-text by critics of the LDS doctrine of the corporeal nature of God. Critics argue that this passage proves that God does not have a physical body.
Commentary
The context of this verse is that Jesus is explaining to a Samaritan woman how one must worship. Jesus teaches that the place of worship, whether Samaria or Jerusalem, is not important, but rather the way one worships. By teaching attributes of God, Jesus teaches how His children can and should relate to Him and worship Him. Latter-day Saints emphatically agree that God is indeed spirit, just as He is love 1 Jn 1:5, light 1 Jn 4:8, and a consuming fire Deuteronomy 4:24, but He is not only spirit, love, light, or fire.
The Greek language has no indefinite article ("a" or "an") and so the translator must decide whether to include that word in the English text. But for Latter-day Saints, the presence or absence of the article makes no difference. Latter-day Saints believe both that God is spirit (as an attribute) and that God is a spirit (as a statement of His nature). Similarly, Latter-day Saints believe that all people are also spirits, but spirits housed within a physical body.
In the chapter immediately preceding this scripture, in John 3:5-6 , Jesus says the following:
John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (NASB)
It is clear from the above verse that Jesus considered it entirely possible for a mortal human with a physical body to be spirit. Likewise, it is not inconsistent to believe that God the Father simultaneously has a physical body and "is spirit."
Online |
|
Print |
|
Navigators |
How is Isaiah 43:10 used as a proof-text by critics of the Church doctrines of humans' ability to become like God through Christ's atonement?
The context of this passage makes it clear that the issue being addressed is not one of general theology but rather a very specific and practical command to recognize YHWH as Israel's only god and the only god to be worshiped
King James Version
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. Isaiah 43꞉10
Other translation(s)
"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. (NIV)
Use or misuse by Church critics
This verse is used as a proof-text by critics of the LDS doctrines of the plurality of gods and the deification of man. It is claimed that this verse proves that there never has been or ever will be another being who could properly be called a god.
Commentary
This passage and other similar proof texts from the Hebrew scriptures are misused by critics. When read in context, it is clear that the intent of the passage is to differentiate YHWH from the foreign gods and idols in the cultures surrounding the Jews.
Verses 11 - 13 are a continuation of the statement by God:
I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.
I have revealed and saved and proclaimed—I, and not some foreign god among you. You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "that I am God.
Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?" (NIV)
The context of this passage makes it clear that the issue being addressed is not one of general theology but rather a very specific and practical command to recognize YHWH as Israel's only god and the only god to be worshiped.
In addition to misapplying this passage, critics also fail to recognize the growing body of evidence that shows that the Jewish religion was not strictly monotheistic until quite late in its development, certainly after the era in which Isaiah was written. When this evidence is considered, it appears that Judaism originally taught that though there are indeed other divine beings, some of whom are called gods, none of these are to be worshiped except for the God of gods who created all things and who revealed Himself to Moses.
How is Genesis 3:5 used by critics who claim that the doctrine of deification (theosis) is a teaching of Satan?
The use of Genesis 3 to counter the doctrine of deification/theosis has two problems associated with it:
First: Satan never claimed that Adam and Eve would be gods, just that they would be "as gods, knowing good and evil."
|
|
|
|
Use or misuse by Church critics
This verse is used by critics to attempt to show that the LDS doctrine of deification is a teaching of Satan.
Commentary
The critics seriously misunderstand and misinterpret this passage of scripture.
Note that the serpent makes two claims:
(1) "ye shall not surely die" and
(2) "ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
But if one looks forward to Genesis 3:22:
"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:"
Second problem: The second and bigger problem is that Satan was, in fact, telling the truth on this point, as God confirms.
God announces that Adam and Eve did indeed become as gods, knowing good and evil. As usual, Satan mixes lies and truth. In this case he said that Adam and Eve wouldn't die (a lie) but he also said that their eating would make them "as gods, knowing good and evil" (a truth).
So the lie of Satan in the Garden of Eden was that transgressing God's law would not bring death (with the implication that Adam and Eve could have the god-like ability to know good and evil without paying a terrible price).
This chapter isn't even relevant to beliefs about deification.
Key sources |
|
|||
FAIR links |
||||
Online |
|
|||
Video |
|
|||
Print |
|
|||
Bibliography on human deification |
|
|||
Navigators |
Notes
How can one best read and understand the scriptures?
The proper interpretation and understanding of scripture is essential to the continued health and vitality of ever believer's faith, and it is a key means whereby interested seekers can come to faith.
And, what do we do if we come to something in scripture that we believe may be a contradiction?
This article offers some principles and procedures which may help.
1. Understand the nature of revelation
The scriptures won't be understood if we don't understand the nature of revelation. This is addressed on this page.
2. Read contextually
"Exegesis" is a fancy word for the interpretation or explanation of scripture.
OFten, when we’re speaking of exegesis, we are trying to understand how the first hearers/readers of those scriptures understood them. We assume that the historical background of that scripture can tell us something about how to interpret it.
There are a few stages in getting the scriptural author's meaning from their brain into our brain:
- The author’s starts with something that they intend to communicate.
- The author must take their intention, and put it into words. They may or may not succeed fully at this.
- The reader will then read and understand the text in his or her own way.
Exegesis tries to help us better at understand what an author may have meant, and how they wrote to express that meaning. To make things more tricky, we remember that the author is usually from an ancient culture, and even Joseph Smith's early 19th century culture is very foreign to us in some ways.
This means that their ways of thinking and writing will probably not be the same as ours—and may be completely foreign to us.
The historical-grammatical method of exegesis helps us to try and get a more accurate understanding of the first two stages of transmission so that the interpretation made at the last stage of transmission can be best informed.
Latter-day Saints are encouraged to seek to understand scripture in its original context. Scripture contains several admonitions to not wrest it.[1] Nephi in the Book of Mormon has to pause his quotation of/commentary on Isaiah in order to explain "the manner of prophesying among the Jews" so that his people could understand Isaiah.[2]
This suggests that we, too, may learn more if we try to understand scripture in context.
President Brigham Young stated:
Do you read the Scriptures, my brethren and sisters, as though you were writing them a thousand, two thousand, or five thousand years ago? Do you read them as though you stood in the place of the men who wrote them? If you do not feel thus, it is your privilege to do so, that you may be as familiar with the spirit and meaning of the written word of God as you are with your daily walk and conversation, or as you are with your workmen or with your households. You may understand what the Prophets understood and thought—what they designed and planned to bring forth to their brethren for their good.[3]
Four types of context
- Genre: Scripture has many genres of writing. There is legal code, historical texts, narratives, poetry, and more. Understanding the genre of scripture can help us in interpreting that scripture.
- History: Scripture was written at a particular time and in a particular culture. We often need a lot of tools to help us understand when scripture was written and under what cultural filters. Two useful study bibles that provide some of this are The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible and the Jewish Study Bible.
- Textual: A verse of scripture does not exist by itself. It is in the midst of many other verses. We should read before and after the part we are studying to understand what the author is talking about.
- Language: Words obviously have meaning. They can have different meanings to different people at different times. Since most scripture is written in a different language than the one we grew up speaking, we need someway to understand them. (Even English speakers may make mistakes reading the Doctrine and Covenants, since English in Joseph Smith's era has significant differences in meaning compared to today.)
A translation by an expert is only the first step. We may then need more help to understand what the translated English word might be getting at. Even English words as contained in the King James Bible (the Church’s officially preferred translation for English readers) may be hard to understand because they either aren’t in common use anymore or because they have shifted in meaning over time. Often, we are most at risk of making this kind of mistake with an English text—because we assume we know what English words mean.
An example of this problem is the word "virtue" in the Bible. In Ruth 3꞉11, we read "And now, my daughter, fear not; I will do to thee all that thou requires: for all the city of my people doth know that thou art a virtuous woman." And in Proverbs 31꞉10 we read "Who can find a virtuous woman? For her price is far above rubies." With these verses we might easily conclude that the King James translators meant something like "to be chaste."
But, Luke 6꞉19 reads "And the whole multitude sought to touch [Jesus]: for there went virtue out of him, and healed them all." So, did chastity left Jesus’ body after a woman touched him? We undestand better when we realize that "virtue" for the King James translators was closer what we call "power" than "chastity." The footnote at the end of this paragraph has many suggestions of tools to help.[4]
3. Read holistically
As the Lord says five times in the Doctrine & Covenants, "what [he says] unto one [he says] unto all."[5] Scripture must be read holistically. If we are to understand it, then it must be understood as a whole. This so we can understand how the scriptures complement, supplement, expand, update, retract, and/or revise each other.
To read scripture holistically, you should first have very clear in mind what topic you want to explore or question that they want answered. For instance, suppose you want to study the topic of charity in the scriptures. Next, you should try and imagine which terms touch on that topic. For instance, the scriptures contain over 600 occurrences of the words "charity," "charitable," "love," "loved," "loves," "lovest," "loving," "loving kindness," and "loving kindnesses." Finally, you could read every occurence of those words contextually (following the steps laid out below) President Russell M. Nelson suggested something like this method when he read every name used for Jesus Christ in all scripture.[6]
There may be topics that don't fall so easily under identifiable word clusters. For instance, to learn about the Creation we need to read the four creation accounts in Genesis, Moses, Abraham, and the temple. We should understand that the Lord has not revealed all things pertaining to creation but will reveal them at his second coming.[7] In cases such as these, we might need other tools, some of which are in the footnote.[8]
There are also many wonderful and free resources available on-line.[9]
One should also consider what Latter-day Saint leaders have said about the passages of scripture that we're studying. The BYU Scripture Citation Index and the LDS General Conference Corpus are fantastic resources.
4. If scripture is making a scientific claim, weigh it with science
Our theology is not threatened by science. It welcomes it. If we have properly contextualized and interpreted scripture and if scripture is making a scientific claim, we should weigh scripture with science to be more perfectly instructed in that doctrine, principle, or theory. D&C 88꞉77-79 reads
And I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom. Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand; Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are. Things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms
Science can, should, and does support revelation on many particulars. We should welcome its voice to our spiritual reasoning when determining what God is trying to reveal to us or what he may reveal to us. This isn’t to say that current science will always agree with revelation nor that revelation will eventually change to fit the demands of the scientific community, but that revelation and science should not fight against each other nor be compartmentalized in our understanding of truth. Science will generally reveal the physical laws of God, while revelation will generally reveal God’s spiritual laws.
There may be some unresolved difficulties when weighing science and scripture. We can take a lack of archaeological evidence for the Canaanite conquest as depicted in the Bible. Does the lack of evidence mean that the conquest didn’t happen as depicted in the Bible or that God made it so that that kind of evidence wasn’t available to us? It’s an unanswerable question and many like these will arise during the course of weighing scripture and science. Keep in mind that God not allowing the evidence to exist doesn’t necessarily make him deceitful nor a trickster. It just means that there needs to be a degree of evidentiary separation between him and us so that we can come into relationship freely with him instead of being coerced into it by overwhelming proof of his existence. Who really knows how exactly he could have bent time and space in order to make these miraculous events of scripture happen and then to not leave sufficient evidence of their happening? Who really knows exactly what level of evidence is sufficient for leading us a long a path of breadcrumbs to God vs. coercing us too forcefully into believing in his existence? Who knows whether God has chosen to remove evidence from us to allow faith or whether something just never occurred in the first place? We must be careful when weighing science with the scriptures.
Conclusion
The foregoing framework for understanding scripture should help all of us in guarding against temptation and deception, as well as unifying the Saints: making us more "of one heart and one mind."[10] It will help us avoid those ideas that are the philosophies of men mingled with scripture and embrace those that are "virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy[.]"[11]
Continued practice of this method may reveal other important insights about reading and understanding scripture. It is the author’s prayer that those searching for those insights will do so with a patient, humble, soft, and diligent heart engaged in prayer always.
How can one view contradictions in Scripture in a faithful way?
Introduction to Question
It is claimed that the Holy Bible and other scriptures in the standard works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contain contradictions. In some cases, the essential argument being made by critics may have merit and, in others, may not. It may become the responsibility of Latter-day Saints from time to time to defend the high authority of scripture.
There Seems to be Historical Contradictions in Scripture
Some of the seeming contradictions in scripture may be termed historical contradictions.
- The Death of Judas: Did he die by hanging (Matthew 27:5)? Or did he fall headlong and have his bowels gush out (Acts 1:18)? Academic attempts to harmonize these two passages ceased at least as early as the late nineteenth century. Scholars today generally see both accounts as irreconcilably contradictory.[12]
- Jesus Calming The Sea: The Gospels differ in the succession of events when Jesus calms the storm at sea. In the Matthean account, the Lord chastises his apostles for not having enough faith and then calms the storm whereas in the Markan and Lucan accounts he calms the storm and then chastises his apostles. The Johannine account lacks the story.[13]
- The name of Moses’ Mountain: The Pentateuch differs in its naming of the mountain from which Moses received the Ten Commandments. In some instances it is "Horeb" (Exodus 3:1; 17:6; 33:6; Deuteronomy 1:2; 4:10) and in others it is "Sinai" (Exodus 19:1–2, 11, 18, 20, 23; 34:2, 4, 29, 32; Numbers 3:1, 4, 14). This is one of the reasons that many scholars see the Pentateuch as the composition of multiple authors/redactors.
- The Timing of the Savior's Crucifixion: The Gospels differ in their timing of the crucifixion of the Savior. Was it during Passover? Before Passover? Or after Passover? Scholars believe that the difference is ultimately irreconcilable, and one simply must choose which account to believe.[14] Generally, Mark is favored since it is considered the earliest to be authored.[15]
There Seems to Be Theological Tensions/Contradictions in Scripture
Some of the seeming contradictions in scripture may be termed theological tensions/contradictions.
- High Christology and Low Christology: It has long been observed by scholars that the Markan account of the Savior portrays Jesus as more human—lowly, and mortal—than the Johannine account which portrays Jesus as godlike from the antemortal realm to the end of his life. Scholars generally believe that the Markan account holds what they term a "low Christology" and the Johannine account a "high Christology."[16]
- Performing Alms: How can we not perform our alms in public (Matthew 6:1) but also let our light shine before the world (Matthew 5:16)?
- Becoming and Not Becoming A Child: How can we set childish things aside (1 Corinthians 13:11) and become as a child (Matthew 18:3)?
This article will outline principles and procedures for reconciling perceived contradictions in scripture. Many of the principles and procedures laid out in this article apply to the uncanonized teachings and revelations of top leadership of the Church. Thus, this article can also be considered a blueprint for defending the teachings of General Authorities.
Response to Question
Now let's lay out some principles and procedures to consider/follow when evaluating any contradiction.
1. Latter-day Saints should defend scripture as much as possible
It is our sacred duty as Latter-day Saints to defend the faith. For those that have entered the temple and received their endowment, you have pledged everything you have or will have in defending and sustaining the kingdom of God. Scripture admonishes us to always have a reason for the hope that is within us and to call upon our enemies to confound them both in public and private.[17] Thus, defending the faith is a duty we take on as we have covenanted with God to do so.
This is our duty as it relates to defending scripture:
- We should seek to defend scripture as logically, historically, and theologically consistent as much as humanly possible. We should seek to defend scripture as morally justifed as much as humanly possible. We should seek to defend scripture as historically real (wherever historicity is asserted) as much as humanly possible.
Why is this our duty? Well first, as already mentioned, we have covenanted to defend the faith. But people also need to know that the spiritual guides that they look to are reliable as spiritual guides. We are not going to be able to retain members or gain converts by being passive to our critics and allowing them to paint the scriptures and prophets as unreliable spiritual guides. We need to uphold the scriptures and the prophets as reliable guides as much as humanly possible.
If we metaphorize every miracle recorded in scripture, we run the risk of making it appear as if God doesn't really intervene in this world and doesn't actually work miracles.
If we condemn a lot of scriptural morals, what morals of scripture can we actually rely on and trust as morals we should actually live by?
If we affirm every possible contradiction/tension in scripture, how does that affect the reliability of scripture?
Of course, this is not to say that the scriptures are infallible. It's only to say that we should defend it as much as possible. There may be times, as already noted, where it indeed is impossible to defend something as consistent. This isn't an issue. What is an issue is making seeing the flaws our first instinct. Our first instinct should be to defend scripture.
One way that Evangelical and Catholic apologists defend the Bible is by saying that a contradiction cannot be termed a contradiction until all other scenarios that make the two or more passages in question in conflict are ruled out. For instance, "Matthew 28:2 says there was only one angel at the tomb of Jesus, while Mark 16:5 [says] there was one young man clothed in a long white garment. Luke 24:4 and John 20:12 tells us there were two angels at the tomb."[18] But this may mean, instead of the passages being contradictory, that some accounts were simply more detailed in their relation of events after Jesus' resurrection from the tomb than others. The young man in the long white garment may just be a description of an angel that Mark decided to give. We can't say that a passage is truly contradictory until all scenarios for resolving the contradictions are ruled out. Latter-day Saints may consider whether this principle will be useful for them in defending the high authority of scripture.
Let's talk a little bit more about infallibility/inerrancy.
2. Latter-day Saints do Not Believe in Scriptural Inerrancy
Latter-day Saints do not believe in the doctrine of Scriptural Inerrancy where the scriptures must be completely historically accurate, contain no theological tensions, and have no contradictions. That said, Latter-day Saints tend to hold the scriptures with a high degree of authority. How can this be the case? We don’t believe that scripture is inerrant, yet we also don’t want others to believe that we seek to create a God after our own image (Doctrine & Covenants 1:16) or that we believe that truth cannot be found in scripture.
Using the principles below will reveal how we can believe in the reliability of scripture.
3. You need to have an intelligent way to study the scriptures and understanding the nature of prophetic revelation
As several Church leaders have cautioned, the scriptures must be read intelligently. You must have a method for getting the proper interpretation and understanding of scripture. We've outlined a method here. You also need to understand how Latter-day Saints understand the nature of prophetic revelation: how it will be given to us, when it will be given to us, and on what subjects. We've outlined that here.
Having this method in line will help you to recognize when two, seemingly contradictory accounts can either not be contradictory at all or both be equally right even if mentioning two different things.
For example, two friends, David and Michael, go the store. David can report this event to his parents as if only he went to the store: "Oh, this afternoon I went to Wal-Mart." Michael can report the same event as if only he went to the store. Both boys are equally right.
It should be remembered that the presence of contradiction in the relation of a historical event does not negate the occurrence of the event. One should focus on the essential reality of the event being described itself rather than the presence of contradictions in the relation of the event or the ahistoricity of one account of that event. The broad outlines of the Bible, Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and Book of Moses can be trusted as historically plausible.[19]
Similarly, scriptural authors may be writing from a historical perspective. Scholar Pete Enns gives the example of God’s opinion of the Assyrians: in the book of Jonah, God really likes the Assyrians and wants them to be saved; but in the book of Nahum, God destroys them. Is God contradicting himself? Or are biblical authors just writing from their distinct, historically-situated perspectives?[20] God may certainly like the Assyrians and want to save them, but that doesn’t mean that his justice won’t be brought down on them if they deserve it.
Sometimes differing and competing theological perspectives in scripture were meant to be brought into dialogue so that a synthesis of views could be abstracted. As the author of Proverbs tells us: "iron sharpeneth iron" (Proverbs 27:17).[21] This is one of many reasons that scripture should be read both contextually and holistically.
4. Line upon line and its two features
Citing scripture, Latter-day Saints frequently talk about how revelation comes through the prophets "line upon line, precept upon precept."[22] "Line upon line" has two features or functions:
- It reveals core truths over time directly to the prophet.
- It makes small addenda to previous revelations without threatening the core integrity of the first revelation. It's like reporting to one's parents that they went to the grocery store after school and then, getting futher into the conversation, reporting that one's friend also came with them.
Thus, rather than contradicting a previous passage, a subsequent passage may be complementing or supplementing the first.
5. God commands and revokes as seems good to him
In Section 56 of the Doctrine & Covenants, the Lord states:
- 3 Behold, I, the Lord, command; and he that will not obey shall be cut off in mine own due time, after I have commanded and the commandment is broken.
- 4 Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord.[23]
This scripture does not condone moral relativism. The Lord is indeed bound by a moral law that is factual. All this means is that there are sometimes multiple, equally good ways to bring about the same end, and that the Lord will choose between these ways as adaptions to the conditions of the world and his covenant people. Additionally, there are times where more emphasis needs to be placed one moral end over others. There are many times when—in our quest to bring about individual or communal flourishing—that we have competing moral goods that can be met. Sometimes, our best thinking and tools do not allow us to know what is the most important moral good to achieve and how to structure our behavior nor or in the future as well as individually or communally to achieve that good. Revelation may "contradict" itself and change as we fulfill those moral goods and then have other moral goods that we must meet.
Readers should keep this scripture in mind when evaluating "contradictions" in the commandments and covenants God has given his people throughout time.
6. What we know about the afterlife is likely contingent upon what will motivate us to repent.
Doctrine & Covenants 19:6–7, 10–12 states:
- 6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.
- 7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my glory.
- 10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore
- 11 Eternal punishment is God's punishment.
- 12 Endless punishment is God's punishment.
Prior to this time, Joseph Smith's revelations seem to indicate that "endless punishment" might refer to something like eternal torment in a burning hell. This revelation shows us that what we know about the afterlife though is likely contingent upon what will motivate us to repent and to turn to God.
Readers should keep this in mind when evaluating what sort of "contradictions" exist about the afterlife in the scriptural record.
7. Apostasies and restorations can bring losses of knowledge. That knowledge may need to be restored gradually
Latter-day Saints believe in the concept of dispensations: periods of time in which God reveals his will through a prophet. A dispensation is inaugurated when God calls a prophet to receive revelation on behalf of the human family. A dispensation is ended when the general populace apostatizes or rebels against God. After the period of apostasy, God has called prophets anew.
With apostasies, knowledge about God can be lost from others. In ancient times, scriptural records were preserved on rolls of papyrus, clay tablets, and "writing-boards—flat boards of wood or ivory cut out in such a way that an inlay of wax could be written upon. The boards were hinged together to become a folding book."[24] These might not have been accessible to the next person that God deemed worthy to be called as prophet. Knowledge to that prophet would then have to be restored "line upon line" just as it was before.
8. The Scriptures in Question May Be Focusing on a Specific Question Rather than Historical Accuracy
The narratives of ancient scripture (especially the Old Testament, Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, and Book of Abraham) are often composed to tell one overriding message. The revelation to tell that message may have been short. "Hey, prophet, I need you to write about the importance of charity." The prophet/author(s) of the different books of scripture may then be composing their narratives around that message and historical consistency may not be their focus when writing. This may explain why some books in the Pentateuch say Horeb and others, Sinai as mentioned above. Indeed, authors of the Old Testament, New Testament, and Book of Mormon are often writing from the third person: talking about revelations received in the past by prophets and recounting them historically rather than receiving a dictated revelation in the style of Doctrine & Covenants. Scripture writers are often doing something closer to the work of historians and recounting what prophets have revealed in the past rather than doing the work of prophets and dictating revelation word for word as they receive it from God. They may be recounting this history based off of oral tradition (like people passing stories or rumors from one person to another) or written tradition (like typical documents that historians work from today to reconstruct the past). Any number of potential discrepancies can arise in a text then since the text is subject to the fallible human processes of historical reconstruction. In cases like these where contradictions arise because of the pitfalls of uncovering accurate history, we can elect to rely on the earliest account and the one with the least amount of bias. Knowing which account of an event is earlier and has the least amount of bias is the main work of scriptural source critics. Their work can be found in commentaries and other scholarly publications on the scriptures. We, as Latter-day Saints, can pay attention to this work in our efforts to learn everything we can from and about scripture.
This may be one of the reasons that the Book of Mormon so strongly emphasizes the importance of preserving records to accurately record how God has dealt with his children.
9. Scripture May Preserve Moral Fallibility So That We Can Learn From It
As an example of this, consider the words of Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf regarding a scripture from Solomon:
The ancient King Solomon was one of the most outwardly successful human beings in history.[25] He seemed to have everything—money, power, adoration, honor. But after decades of self-indulgence and luxury, how did King Solomon sum up his life?
"All is vanity," he said.[26]This man, who had it all, ended up disillusioned, pessimistic, and unhappy, despite everything he had going for him.[27]
[. . .]
Solomon was wrong, my dear brothers and sisters—life is not "vanity." To the contrary, it can be full of purpose, meaning, and peace.
The healing hands of Jesus Christ reach out to all who seek Him. I have come to know without a doubt that believing and loving God and striving to follow Christ can change our hearts,[28] soften our pain, and fill our souls with "exceedingly great joy."[29][30]
One will notice that Elder Uchtdorf 1) declares Solomon wrong; and 2) uses scriptures to establish what he believed was the correct view. Indeed, Elder Uchtdorf uses many scriptures that contradict Solomon's view. But another important element of this is that Elder Uchtdorf didn't state that Solomon was wrong for expressing the view or that the scripture wasn't inspired for having a "wrong" view. Rather, he used Solomon's downtrodden state to illustrate an important principle of life.
Thus, there may be errors of perspective on doctrine and not doctrine itself in the scriptures.
This may be one option to consider when evaluating the contradictions of scripture.
10. There’s a Difference Between a Contradiction and a Paradox
There’s a difference between a contradiction and a paradox.
A contradiction is making a claim and then denying it: stating X and then denying X. If I say it’s raining outside and then say it’s not raining outside I am contradicting myself.
A paradox is making a seemingly contradictory statement but it’s actually just affirming two propositions that can both be true simultaneously: affirming X and then affirming Y. I can affirm that there is an unstoppable force and an immovable object and I won’t necessarily be contradicting myself. If I say there is an unstoppable force and then deny that there is an unstoppable force, then I am contradicting myself.
Scripture may contain paradox that is useful for our instruction.
11. Further revelation from modern prophets may resolve other contradictions in scripture
One of the glorious messages of the Restored Gospel is that the heavens are still open and God still speaks to his children through living prophets. We know that prophets can receive revelation that can then be canonized by the sustaining vote of the Church's membership. We may look forward to future revelation to resolve any uncertainties or seeming contradictions in scripture.
One example of this principle in action may be how the Doctrine & Covenants resolves a contradiction in the Bible. In Exodus 33:11 it is affirmed that "the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." Just nine verses later, Exodus 33:20 affirms that: "Thou [referring to Moses] canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." As an even starker contrast from 33:11, John 1:18 affirms that "[n]o one has seen God at any time." 1 Timothy 6:16 (NIV) gives praise to the God who "alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen."[31]
Doctrine & Covenants 84:21–22 reads "And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh; For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live." These verses seem to suggest that without the power of godliness intervening and helping man to take in God's glory, no man can see God the Father. This passage makes sense of much of the others from the Bible and may be seen as revelation clarifying previous revelation and resolving an apparent contradiction.
12. There May Be Ideological Purposes Behind Contradictions. There Are a Couple of Principles to Keep in Mind When Dealing With These
There may be certain ideological purposes behind certain contradictions. For instance, some have proposed that David's slaying of Goliath may have actually been done by a man named Elhanan. The contradictions exist, some scholars propose, because writers either wanted to undermine or shore up David's credibility and legitimacy as king of Israel.
Assuming that this is true and that Elhanan was the one that actually killed David (just for the sake of argument), we can extract a several principles that may help us to understand how to deal with these types of contradictions/tensions:
- It may be that one of the writer's position came via revelation from God and the other(s) writer's did not. It may be that the other writer is trying to undermine the first writer's position by arguing against it.
- It may be that neither of the writers' positions came via revelation from God but that they were trying to do something good nonetheless. In this example and assuming that it is true, shoring up David's credibility/authenticity as king of Israel may have actually been a good thing, but the writer that credited Goliath's death to David was doing it the wrong way. One could assume the opposite: that Elhanan was credited with the death of Goliath wrongly but not for a nefarious purpose. We don't necessarily have to see the disagreement as something nefarious.
- The best way to tell which writers' position came from God may be to read the rest of the scriptures and find if other authors agree with one of the writers. Perhaps if more writers agree with one over another, then we can take that position as the true/correct one. Scripture returns to the theme of establishing God's word in the mouth of two or three witnesses many times.[32] If there isn't as good of a consensus, perhaps we can synthesize the two positions somehow.
- It may not be necessary to find consensus nor synthesize. In this case of David/Elhanan, perhaps we can just take the disagreement and find it to be an interesting aspect of the Bible. There really isn't anything major at stake in believing that Elhanan and not David killed Goliath. At most it just means that a tradition about David or Elhanan is wrong. It doesn’t change the more important fact that David was the king of Israel and that the Savior descended from David. The same principle could apply to other controversies: perhaps we don’t need to care whether there’s a contradiction since it doesn’t change more central and important facts about the Gospel.
- We can know that something more important is at stake when the controversy in question centers around a moral/ethical question. Believers are more interested in knowing how to be a good person in the eyes of God. They need clear communication in knowing how to do that. They don't need to fret about every historical controversy about scripture.
13. Scripture Can Still Be Instructive and Valuable as Scripture Even When it Contains Contradictions
This is especially true when dealing with mere historical contradictions rather than moral and theological ones, but scripture can still be instructive and valuable as scripture even when it contains contradictions.
Scholars have argued, and not without merit (and also not without some informed pushback), that the story of Joseph being sold into Egypt in Genesis 37:18–36 can actually be divided into two separate, unified narratives about how Joseph was sold. There seem to be narrative hiccups as one reads the story as currently contained in the Bible and this can be resolved by disentangling the two accounts. Verses 19, 20, 23, 26, 27, 31–35 can function on their own as one account and the rest of the verses—18, 21, 22, 24–25, 28, 29–30, and 36—can function as another narrative. It resolves the contradictions and clunky narrative seams that seem to be present in the current account as contained in our Bibles today.
The two accounts, however, when separated out, can still be instructive and valuable on their own as scripture and teach us true doctrine. We shouldn’t need to demand a pristine text in order to consider the text true and instructive.
Further Insights
Further insights about how to understand contradictions/tensions will come as one understands how the biblical authors constructed narratives and thought about history. Two of the best books on this subject are Philips Long’s The Art of Biblical History and Robert Alter’s The Art of Biblical Narrative. Suggested reading for any interested.
Conclusion
Using the principles and procedures laid out above, it is the author's belief that virtually all contradictions/tensions are reconciable and lead to a clear picture about God that we can use to become like him and adopt his nature.
- ↑ 2 Peter 3꞉16, Alma 13꞉20, Alma 41꞉1, DC 10꞉63, DC 88꞉77-79
- ↑ 2 Nephi 25꞉1
- ↑ JD 7:333. .wiki
- ↑ For understanding the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, the author recommends either making an effort to learning those languages or using the features at netbible.org that allow readers to click on the tab that gives the original Greek or Hebrew text, hover over the text to see the word that was translated, and then use the pop-up dictionaries. For understanding confusing King Jamesian English, the author recommends using the resources found at kingjamesbibledictionary.com. For understanding the meaning of a word in Joseph Smith's time, one should probably consult the King James Bible Dictionary (link above), 1828 Webster's Dictionary, and the Oxford English Dictionary. The reason that one should consult all three including the OED is because, as Stanford Carmack has persuasively argued, the 1828 Webster's Dictionary lacks important possibilities for how Joseph Smith might have defined a word in his mind when giving us all his scriptural productions. Stanford Carmack, "Why the Oxford English Dictionary (and not Webster’s 1828)," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 15 (2015): 65–77.
The goal of all this work is to establish that one has the superior interpretation of scripture or, in other words, the one that is most likely the correct one. Thus, one should seek for and document as much support for their interpretation of scripture as possible.
To aid in doing exegesis, members might simply consult any one of the literally hundreds of scholarly commentaries that have been produced to interpret different books of the New and Old Testament as well as the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. Many Latter-day Saints have been benefitted in using scriptural commentaries and study bibles such as the Harper Collins Study Bible, the New Oxford Annotated Bible, and the Jewish Study Bible. These study bibles contain essays at the beginning of each book to help explain authorship, historical place in canon, and historical context in which a particular book of scripture was written before allowing the reader to move forward with their study. The bibles also contain explanatory footnotes which allow the reader to see how an author is alluding to other passages of scripture as well as understand how to interpret certain verses. For Latter-day Saint scripture, members have enjoyed reading similar analytical commentaries such as Brant Gardner's Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon for the Book of Mormon; Steven Harper's Making Sense of the Doctrine and Covenants: A Guided Tour Through Modern Revelations for the Doctrine & Covenants; and the resources at Pearl of Great Price Central for the Pearl of Great Price. One might find the resources at Book of Mormon Central and Doctrine and Covenants Central very useful.
Another resource for understanding the geography of scripture is The Scriptures Mapped. Scriptures tend to name locations that are unfamiliar to modern readers. Two professors at BYU, Stephen Liddle and Taylor Halverson, created this resource to help know what locations the scriptures are referring to. - ↑ DC DC꞉1, DC 82꞉5, DC 92꞉1, DC 93꞉49
- ↑ [citation needed]
- ↑ & Covenants/101?lang=eng&id=32-34#32-34 Doctrine & Covenants 101꞉32-34.
- ↑ One might consult good doctrinal resources such as scriptural dictionaries. For the Bible, one might consult Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible; for the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon Reference Companion; for the Doctrine & Covenants, the Doctrine and Covenants Reference Companion; and for the Pearl of Great Price, the Pearl of Great Price Reference Companion. These are great resources for reading scripture contextually and holistically.
- ↑ See the Topical Guide, Index to the Triple Combination, the Guide to the Scriptures, the search function on the Gospel Library app, the search function on churchofjesuschrist.org, Eldin Ricks's Thorough Concordance of the LDS Standard Works (or Gary Shapiro's concordance).
- ↑ Philippians 2:2; 1 Peter 3:15; Moses 7:18.
- ↑ Articles of Faith 1:13
- ↑ Kevin Barney, "The Joseph Smith Translation and Ancient Texts of the Bible," in The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture, ed. Dan Vogel (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990), 152–53.
- ↑ Thomas M. Mumford, Horizontal Harmony of the Four Gospels in Parallel Columns (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 48.
- ↑ Frank Daniels, "When was the Passover? When was the Resurrection?" Friktech, accessed August 10, 2021, https://www.friktech.com/rel/passover.htm.
- ↑ James Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2002), 1–3.
- ↑ Julie M. Smith, The Gospel According to Mark (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 2018), 17–20.
- ↑ 1 Peter 3:15; Doctrine & Covenants 71:7–9.
- ↑ "How many angels were at the tomb of Jesus after His resurrection?" NeverThirsty, accessed September 26, 2022, https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/how-many-angels-at-the-tomb-of-jesus/.
- ↑ Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering Challenges to Evangelical Christian Belief (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016); K.H. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2006); Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing, 2006); ESV Archaeology Study Bible (Carol Stream, IL: Crossway, 2018); Craig S. Keener, Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2019); John Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2013); Brant Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2015); Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007); John Welch, ed., Knowing Why: 137 Evidences that the Book of Mormon is True (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2017); Noel B. Reynolds, ed., Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1997). For an overview of evidence for the Book of Abraham, see here. For evidence for the Book of Moses see Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, In God's Image and Likeness (Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2009); Jeffrey M. Bradshaw and David Larson, In God's Image and Likeness 2: Enoch, Noah, and the Tower of Babel (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation, 2014).
- ↑ Pete Enns (@theb4np), "Does the Bible contradict itself? From Pete Enns. #InstaxChallenge #theologytok #bibletok," TikTok, March 27, 2022, https://vm.tiktok.com/TTPdmdLFDA/.
- ↑ A volume built on this insight has been created for Latter-day Saints. Julie M. Smith, ed., As Iron Sharpeneth Iron: Listening to the Various Voices of Scripture (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2016).
- ↑ Isaiah 28:10, 13; 2 Nephi 28:30; Doctrine & Covenants 98:12; 128:21
- ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 56:3–4. Emphasis added.
- ↑ Lenet H. Read, "How the Bible Came to Be: Part 2, The Word Is Preserved," Ensign 12, no. 2 (February 1982): 32.
- ↑ An msn.com poll listed Solomon as the fifth richest person to ever live. "According to the Bible, King Solomon ruled from 970 BC to 931 BC, and during this time he is said to have received 25 tons of gold for each of the 39 years of his reign, which would be worth billions of dollars in 2016. Along with impossible riches amassed from taxation and trade, the biblical ruler’s personal fortune could have surpassed $2 trillion in today’s money" ("The 20 Richest People of All Time," Apr. 25, 2017, msn.com).
- ↑ See Ecclesiastes 1:1–2
- ↑ See Ecclesiastes 2:17
- ↑ See Ezekiel 36:26; Jeremiah 24:7
- ↑ 1 Nephi 8:12
- ↑ Dieter F. Uchtdorf, "Believe, Love, Do," Ensign 48, no. 11 (November 2018): 46–49.
- ↑ Emphasis added. For an insightful critique of the Evangelical interpretation of these verses, see James Stutz, "Can a Man See God? 1 Timothy 6:16 in Light of Ancient and Modern Revelation," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 8 (2014): 11–26.
- ↑ Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:5; Matthew 18:15–16; John 8:12–29; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 2 Nephi 11:3; 27:12–14; Ether 5:2–4; Doctrine & Covenants 5:15.