I look forward to enjoying more of your posts here. As we can’t talk in EQ or in the hall anymore, this forum will be a nice second-best.

I personally speak very precisely so that I am not saying anything untrue, but people not listening for nuance would not catch it either. For example, “the story of Moroni provides us with a powerful example…” I do not need to say one way or another whether Moroni existed to make my point. If people catch the distinctions, they are ready to hear more.

Very interesting! major props…

@kevinr “Priority” could work as well as “Hierarchy” I suppose, but either way, I tried to keep this post focused on my particular point. In reference to reliance on leaders, I think that the leaders are part of the history of interpretation, rather than controlling it from above. Very few if any General Authorities, I imagine, are aware of the issues raised in Biblical scholarship, and therefore are promoting teaching according to earlier traditions, rather than enforcing a particular way of viewing the scriptures (President Hinckley seemed more aware than most). They do decide what to do about particular scholars, but I see that as a more sociological issue than intellectual per se.

@Andrew S. Your comment struck me, as it cut directly to the center of my most important point. The situation of D&C 122 works *only* if you believe that an event or person is historical. Otherwise, as you say, it rings false. Again, that is precisely my point—it is *because* Joseph believed in the reality of Job that this revelation helped him. And there is a power that comes from attributing greater reality to literary characters than they perhaps deserve. I have felt a personal connection to scriptural characters I am no longer certain existed, something I have not yet completely worked out within myself. It is difficult to balance respecting peoples’ relationship to certain interpretations with the potential feeling of disappointment, even betrayal, that they likely will feel if they learn certain things just aren’t so. I personally speak very precisely so that I am not saying anything untrue, but people not listening for nuance would not catch it either. For example, “the story of Moroni provides us with a powerful example…” I do not need to say one way or another whether Moroni existed to make my point. If people catch the distinctions, they are ready to hear more.

As for your second point, certain doctrines or understandings would unravel thoroughly if they were proven ahistorical. The resurrection of Jesus is an obvious example. As for God, my study has forced me to reevaluate my understanding of deity. But again, my central point is that theological point comes from our *understanding* of reality rather than reality itself. Obviously the closer our understanding corresponds to reality the better.

@ed42 Short answer: No difference to me. This has happened; the garden tomb of Jesus comes to mind. I agree with Sam B.’s points.

@Chris H. I am glad you found this post helpful. Yes, truth claims are tricky, and I tried to make clear that “true” is a slippery word, and that something can be “true” even if it is not “historical”. Something can be true in either or both ways you mention. We who think for a living make such distinctions, but that does not necessarily mean we need to impose those on everyone.

@ricke Thank you for the link to Witherington’s blog post; that gives me a lot to chew on. The most important point for my post is that no matter who the author of the Fourth Gospel was, if the Beloved Disciple died (which we both agree on), it causes a problem for D&C 7. I personally like the idea of Mary Magdalene standing as the authority behind the Fourth Gospel (with Raymon Jusino) rather than Lazarus. I need to think about this more, but my problem with Witherington’s thesis is how literally it takes the Fourth Gospel. I agree with scholars who say we need to choose Mark’s portrayal or John’s; they cannot both be historically accurate. And John’s gospel, as inspiring as it is, clearly places history second to theology. There is no way Jesus spoke the way he did in John. There is no way that he was crucified for raising Lazarus rather than being perceived as a political threat. The same goes for Jesus’ captors falling back in Gethsemane at Jesus’ “I AM” statement. And so it goes.

@g.wesley Your comment is very poignant. It is true that the beliefs of the majority, and I would again add revealed scripture, put us in a tight spot. Who are the “unfortunates” of whom you speak? Us? I count myself among those who are happy and feel enriched by the academic knowledge I have. I feel fortunate that I have found a way to balance spirituality and academia. I imagine most of us who read this blog feel similarly. There are some for whom new knowledge does shatter faith, and that is tragic. More than “protect[ing] others from finding out” I see our responsibility as being very conscious and careful with how we teach what we know. And again I urge that we keep things in perspective, and remember the value of the simple, theological truths. I will conclude with my fridge analogy. We scholars may like taking fridges apart, see their inner workings. We take them apart and put them together. Our fridges hopefully are better for it. But we need to remember that the purpose of the fridge is to keep food cold, just as religion has specific purposes. I am a realist in acknowledging that for the majority, the details of what I study do not matter. Heaven forbid I take apart someone’s fridge and it loses its ability to serve its main purpose. I would not do the same with someone’s faith either.

@MormonDeadhead The comfort and joy you bring up ties into my central point; I am saying that historical details should not, in general, be allowed to compromise the power of these narratives. There is a way to have both, but that takes too much graduate work. Jesus’ parables are understood as being fictional, however they are talked about for convenience. The key is how stories are *understood*. Parables are seen as fiction, but many would say that Jonah and the ark of Noah really did exist as the Bible says.

@larryco_ Yes that is what I am saying.

@Clark. Historical is a better word than literal, but both work. Jesus saying “I am the door, the shepherd, the living water…” all these metaphors are theologically true, if not literal. I am concerned primarily with how stories are *understood* especially relating to their historicity. We could ask any member: “Did this story really happen, or is it just fiction?” I referred before to the story of Jonah–the message that God loves all his creations (the message of the book) is theologically true; the story is fiction, more precisely satire.

I look forward to continued conversation on this stimulating blog.

I confess to being confused. Are you saying that historical truth – which must be both correct and accurate (yes, a hard thing to get at) – is trumped by theological truth, which may or may not be literal and incorporates elements of “tact” and “interpretation”?

“To those aware of the critical issues, D&C 122’s encouragement that Joseph is “not yet as Job” may seem disingenuous…”

I think this is a very interesting point (one that got brought up at one of my recent CES training meetings). However, if Job’s non-historicity is disingenuous, what does one do with Jesus’ (or at least the gospel writers’ version of Jesus’) parables? Surely these stories have brought comfort and joy to countless individuals. Is a non-historical figure or occurrence less genuine? Maybe…it seems that characters from the parables have on a certain level been made into “historical” figures. Is this because of a need for something/one to be “historical” in order to relate? I’m not saying LDS think the prodigal son was a historical person, but it seems to me that we often talk about him in a historical manner.

i think i agree.

what i don’t like about this scenario is that it seems to me to be unworkable for those who have come to see things as historically problematic. if theological truth is to be privileged (and as far as i can tell, it must if the show is to go on), then these unfortunates would have been better off not knowing. and the best they can do now is protect others from finding out.

And yes, I know there are members who believe that every word a prophet says is both inspired and true. Which is fine; I also don’t believe in the infallibility of my fellow Latter-day Saints. Heck, I don’t even believe in my own infallibility (most of the time).