Mormons and the Bible

[pelagius]

Some of the discussion today reminded me a little bit of the book by Phil Barlow called, "Mormons and the Bible." Arch, Jeff, or SIEQ did you guys ever do that book as the part of the book of the month club?

[Archaea]

No. Do you recommend it?

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Archaea

No. Do you recommend it?

Its one of my favorite Mormon Studies books. Barlow tries to identify or track LDS views towards the bible over time. He does this through case studies of different leaders: Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, BH Roberts.

Here is a nice interview with Barlow:

http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php?p=2040
http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php?p=2057

[Archaea]

Sounds like a book worthy of review. Any takers?

[pelagius]

I forgot. Barlow wrote the Mormonism and Bible entry in the Oxford Companion to the Bible. It is a very nice intro to his book:

Mormonism and the Bible. Objecting to views of the Torah as a closed world, Martin Buber wrote, “To you God is One who created once and not again; but to us God is he who ‘renews the work of creation every day.’ To you God is One who revealed Himself once and no more; but to us He speaks out of the burning thornbush of the present.” Buber's passion parallels a quintessential dimension of Mormon thought: a deep respect for biblical revelation supporting an even-higher regard for ongoing revelation.

Mormonism came into being through a man (Joseph Smith, 1805–1844) and a culture (antebellum upstate New York) that shared a profound reverence for the Bible. This reverence was thus genetically part of the movement and has not greatly dissipated in the rapidly expanding tradition even at present. Among other things, this means that Mormons have fundamental allegiances in common with many other Christians and also with Jews. Mormons tend to take what they interpret as the Bible's essential truths for granted. They are enjoined to study the testaments regularly and, excepting errors of transmission and translation, consider them to be inspired, in some sense “the word of God.” Their interpretation of the Bible informs their worship, their personal and social ethics, their polity, their theology, and their overall self-consciousness.

It was in fact Joseph Smith's attachment to the Bible that led him to seek God directly during the religious confusion of his youth. This search resulted, Mormons believe, in a vision of God and Jesus (1820) and the organization of a new (or a “restored”) religious tradition: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1830). This church and its belief system would be incomprehensible without its biblically inspired basis.

Despite this enduring biblical foundation, Mormon attitudes are distinct from those of other biblically based faiths. Most centrally, Mormonism rejects the notion of a closed canon. With what he described as divine guidance, Joseph Smith translated and published (1830) the abridged records of ancient Israelites who had escaped the Babylonian captivity by traveling to the Americas around 600 BCE, spawning a civilization that flourished until about 400 CE. This record, known as the Book of Mormon (after its ancient prophet-editor), was itself scripture and was inextricably entwined with the traditional Bible: at once challenging the Bible's uniqueness and yet witnessing to the Bible's authority, echoing its themes, interpreting its passages, sharing its content, correcting its errors, filling its gaps, adopting its language, and restoring its methods, namely, the prophetic process itself.

Many of Smith's later revelations—saturated with biblical themes, phrases, and figures—were also subsequently canonized (The Doctrine and Covenants; The Pearl of Great Price). This precedent of expanding the canon quickly broadened to belief in an open-ended canon. One basic Mormon tenet is that divine-human contact is an ongoing process not subject to closure at an arbitrary point by any human council: “We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things.”

It is, however, not simply an open canon that distinguishes Mormon biblical usage. Joseph Smith's understanding of the very nature of scripture was expansive. For instance, Smith did not believe that “scripture,” despite its etymology, need necessarily be written to be true and authoritative. Thus, said one of his revelations, “Whatsoever [those who hold the priesthood] shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.” The idea of oral scripture contrasts with contemporary Christian practice but bears historical comparison with the treatment of sacred materials in other world religions.

Moreover, scripture for Smith was not the static, final, untouchable word of God that it was for many believers of his time. The Mormon prophet considered scripture to be sacred yet provisional, subject to refinement and addition, as both the evolving texts of his own revelations and the progressive stages of his inspired revision of the Bible (never published in his lifetime) demonstrate. For Mormons, the record of God's actions with humankind is to be highly prized, but this record is necessarily subordinate to direct experience with God—the lifespring of such records—and therefore subject to expansion, clarification, and correction. Mormon leaders further observe that not all of holy writ applies beyond the local and temporal context for which it was formulated.

Since Mormonism is not fond of creeds, Mormon perceptions of scripture are not monolithic. Many Latter-day Saints, for example, assume complete theological harmony within the Bible and between the Bible and other Mormon scriptures. Others champion the priority of modern revelation when apparent conflicts surface or attribute discrepancies to corruptions in the received biblical text. Still others give broad leeway to the human element in both ancient and contemporary revelation. Brigham Young (1801–1877) dismissed parts of the Bible as “baby stories” while remaining loyal to the biblical tradition in general. Joseph Smith, emboldened by his prophetic consciousness, solved various contradictions within the Bible and between his revelations and the biblical text by rewriting portions of the Bible. In the modern context, historical-critical studies of scripture have inspired a predominantly cool, antagonistic, or even oblivious reaction in Mormonism as a whole, particularly where those studies are controlled by naturalistic assumptions. Yet the attitudes of influential leaders and lay members toward serious biblical scholarship have been as divergent as those of any denomination, ranging from enthusiastic to scandalized.

Since the time of Joseph Smith, the Mormon use of scripture has combined a traditional faith in the Bible with more “conservative” elements (like an extra dose of literalism), some liberal components (such as Joseph Smith's insistence, anticipating the thought of Horace Bushnell, on the radical limits of human language), and some radical ingredients (an open canon, an oral scripture, the subjugation of biblical assertions to experiential truth or the pronouncements of living authorities). All of this links the Saints with other religious traditions yet separates them too. Mormons in the modern world remain Bible-believing Christians but with a difference.

Philip L. Barlow

Philip L. Barlow "Mormonism and the Bible" The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds. Oxford University Press Inc. 1993. Oxford Reference Online.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Its one of my favorite Mormon Studies books. Barlow tries to identify or track LDS views towards the bible over time. He does this through case studies of different leaders: Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, BH Roberts.

Here is a nice interview with Barlow:

http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php?p=2040
http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php?p=2057

I've read parts of the book and the Times and Seasons interview.

Didn't Barlow just get hired at Utah State?

I think it would be a great book of the month.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Didn't Barlow just get hired at Utah State?

Yep, his now the Utah State University Leonard Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

No. Do you recommend it?

FWIW, I highly recommend it, though I would need to read it again. It's been a while. Excellent book, though. It is slightly limited (some might say the methodology is completely arbitrary due to the case studies Barlow chooses), but very valuable nonetheless.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

FWIW, I highly recommend it, though I would need to read it again. It's been a while. Excellent book, though. It is slightly limited (some might say the methodology is completely arbitrary due to the case studies Barlow chooses), but very valuable nonetheless.

Good point, CHC. Also, I wonder what we learn when he highlights guys like, Lowell Bennion. I mean Lowell Bennion was a super interesting guy, but I think he represents a fairly small slice of the Mormon Populace. I think maybe highlighting someone like Hugh B Brown or even Nibley from the less conservative spectrum might have been more useful.