A First Presidency approach to the OT

[pelagius]

Colly Wolly mentioned the following in the "By the way Tex, I am still waiting ..." thread:

If modern GAs have said something to discount the OT account, please, by all means, let us know.

This reminded me of a letter written by the 1st presidency in 1922. However, I don't think it "discounts" the Old Testament at all. However, it does describe or endorse, I think, a fairly wide latitude in terms of interpretative frameworks or approaches that are acceptable or useful:

In October 1922 ... the First Presidency received a letter from Joseph W. McMurrin asking about the position of the church with regard to the literality of the Bible. Charles W. Penrose, with Anthony W. Ivins, writing for the First Presidency, answered that the position of the church was that the Bible is the word of God as far as it was translated correctly. They pointed out that there were, however, some problems with the Old Testament. The Pentateuch, for instance, was written by Moses, but ``it is evident that the five books passed through other hands than Moses's after his day and time. The closing chapter of Deuteronomy proves that.'' While they thought Jonah was a real person, they said it was possible that the story as told in the Bible was a parable common at the time. The purpose was to teach a lesson, and it "is of little significance as to whether Jonah was a real individual or one chosen by the writer of the book" to illustrate "what is set forth therein." They took a similar position on Job. What is important, Penrose and Ivins insisted, was not whether the books were historically accurate, but whether the doctrines were correct.

-- Alexander, Thomas G., 1996, Mormonism in Transition: A History of the Latter-Day Saints, 1890-1930, University of Illinois Press (Paperback), page 283.

I am afraid this would get lost in the original thread so I started a new one. I don't mean to poach on Archaea's thread.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Colly Wolly mentioned the following in the "By the way Tex, I am still waiting ..." thread:



This reminded me of a letter written by the 1st presidency in 1922. However, I don't think it "discounts" the Old Testament at all. However, it does describe or endorse, I think, a fairly wide latitude in terms of interpretative frameworks or approaches that are acceptable or useful:

Fair enough. So is it mostly accurate with exaggerations and metaphors serving as exceptions? Or is it mostly exaggeration and metaphor with some fact/accurate truth sprinkled in?

I tend to believe it's the former, but don't claim to be the authority on which parts are factually accurate and which are metaphor.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Colly Wolly

Fair enough. So is it mostly accurate with exaggerations and metaphors serving as exceptions? Or is it mostly exaggeration and metaphor with some fact/accurate truth sprinkled in?

I tend to believe it's the former, but don't claim to be the authority on which parts are factually accurate and which are metaphor.

I think your approach to and belief about the OT are perfectly reasonable and appropriate given the letter. I certainly won't criticize your approach.

However, let me add the following about accurate. I think, for example, the book of Jonah, could be completely fictional but completely accurate. I think the book of Jonah clearly presents itself as satire (and no its not because a fish swallows a man and spits him out three days later). I think the original audience would have recognized it as such. I think later audiences that viewed it as historical were misreading original intent. So belief in "accuracy" doesn't necessarily imply historicity in every case (although clearly it does in some cases). I also worry when 21st century views or understanding of accuracy are imposed on ancients texts.