But when he speaks about the past, I think the same kinds of things that apply to Paul and Nephi apply to Joseph; his statements, even when canonized (as theirs are), do not necessarily represent a divine documentary crystal-ball view into the past (although they can) as much as expression of a received cultural view put to inspired purpose. This is not too different in kind (although it is in scope) than Joseph’s speaking of Paul as the author of Hebrews, discussed here.

IOW, we tend to assume that whatever Joseph says is revelatory, and whatever is revelatory is historical. I think those assumptions need defending, not just asserting. I don’t see a strong warrant for them. Scripture rarely speaks journalistically of the past or the future.

For Clark and others, I read the recent publication Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters . I’ve read the editor’s blog (Charles Halton), and own or have read books by the three contributors. Sparks, IMO, made very strong arguments and demolished objections to his own views, and Peter Enns felt the same way, taking apart Hoffmeier’s objections to Sparks.
Notably, all are Evangelicals with strong commitments to the Bible’s inspiration and inerrancy (as I understand it.) “Disbelief” is not a factor in Sparks and Enns viewing the early chapters as being large non-historical.

It’s interesting that McConkie seems to have a view similar to my own. I’m not surprised by that, but it does make me feel a little better.

Ben S. I happen to know one of Elder McConkie’s sons very well and I think its fair to say that his understanding and appreciation of the Old Testament was far more nuanced than we generally give him credit for. Of all the standard works, the Old Testament was the most difficult for him because we don’t have a text with as strong a providence or reliable text as we did the others.

I think the point is that there are many justifiable readings. So long as a reading isn’t implausible we find the range of possible meanings. In a certain sense which one seems *most* likely depends upon our assumptions. So to a certain degree they’re all ad hoc. At best we can say that many readings are problematic.

I do know someone similar to me in some ways who was contributing to the manuals. S/he would send in a section, and the reply would come back, “this is great stuff!… but it’ll never make it through correlation.” (I know of at least one significant occasion where correlation rejected something strongly as false doctrine, only to be overruled by the President of the Church.) So there’s clearly some institutional resistance, which I think largely comes from lack of exposure and/or an unmerited elevation of tradition like here . I say that because I know several Bishops and Stake Presidents who are largely appreciative of what I do, but take someone like Peter Enns of Kenton Sparks: Evangelical, committed to inerrancy (properly defined), but has no trouble with myth and such in scripture.

I put quotes around “reality” because scientific description is not the only kind of way to express truth or describe reality.

Of course, there are many perceptions of reality, but there is only one reality. And I don’t want to give up on this reality with a capital R 1) actually existing, and 2) people being able to correctly perceive it.

I am a simpleton compared to many bloggers here. After all of this fascinating analysis, conclusions need to be made. (Side issue, why don’t intelligent people like Ben and Brad write our lesson manuals? I might not be quite such a simpleton who is bored silly at church; perhaps confused or overwhelmed but that would be preferable.)

It appears to me that a literal worldwide flood is not a tentable position without denying too much science. We don’t have to accept any science but where does that lead? Is that where we are going or want to be?

I don’t see a reasonable way to put Noah in Missouri (or North Carolina).

I think that Joseph Smith got this one wrong indicating Adam-ondi-Ahman was literally where these 10 patriarchs gathered, which is in the DC. For whatever reason.

How much weight to give this? Coupled with other similar problems? Not the first nor last time the Prophet got it wrong.

Where do we go from here? That is the question for me.

***

For example, a son with a mission call admitted to having unprotected sex with a girl. Off the Mormon reservation this is not a big deal. Confess, pray and promise not to do it again. (Use protection next time, da***it if you can’t control yourself.) But within the LDS community, this is the sin next to murder per a literal interpretation of Alma’s words and probably a dozen other scriptures and hundreds if not thousands of sermons. It becomes an extreme burden of guilt and embarassment and in an unintended way a violation of his constitutional rights of clerical confidentiality. (The boy is an athlete and a dreamboat and not very studious with a gorgeous girlfriend and he was supposed to be in the MTC last month. Everyone knows exactly why, more or less).

Yet Corianton was sent back into the mission field after taking up with a prostitute which is worse than in a somewhat committed juvenile relationship, and this transgression pales in comparison to Joseph Smith’s sexual history if taken at face value. Some of the consequences of this moral infraction are far less now than when the scriptures were given centuries before effective contraceptives and antibiotics. A case could be made for modification. If we can’t take what our church leaders say seriously on verifiable questions, how can we let them ruin the lives of our wayward youth over other traditional interpretations with extreme ramifications?

This example might be a false or stretched analogy. But when you see the boy suffer and worry he might be close to suicidal and you know he is never going to serve the mission and unlikely (statistically) not remain very active in the church long-term and probably not marry in the temple, etc. You just might wonder; if they were wrong about Adam-ondi-Ahman and X and Y and Z, they just might be going overboard on this chastity problem too. (Or any one of a dozen other issues, pick the one bothering you the most).

Mormonsim today, especially following correlation, does not seem to me to be one of these religions that gives general plattitudes with enormous room for interpretation and great tolerance for variability. Quite the opposite. It seems to be pretty much- the leaders tell us what to do (and think?) and we say, yes sir and do it. That has its advantages, but when leaders are given as much near absolute power as we give ours, they need to be right most all of the time. And when they are not why do we still give or expect they have the power and control?

The original question: How much complexity to give this in seminary? When possibly half or more of the students are going to run up hard against some of the teachings of the church within a few short years…
I think 75 comments later we remain far from answering that question. Not to my satisfaction anyway.

And again: I continue to weigh in here as a fan of your writing and thinking “amen” to statements like these. Yes, and yes.

Nevertheless – – and this was the point of my comment in #69 – – the GENERAL issue of when and how to unpack historicity, and when we SHOULD care about it, and how we can assess even foundational claims, is an interesting question. This is how I hear Brad L’s questions and comments, as asking us to think about that.

In other words: where do we go from here? Is every analysis of every “plot point” of ancient scripture just a one-off? And how do we conceive of what it means to have faith in certain scriptural stories, when the historicity – understanding that it may not be the most important question, but it can be A question that arises – is indeterminate?

For instance, my own study and reasoning etc might lead me to certain conclusions about certain stories: that there wasn’t literally a global flood that covered the top of Mt Everest, or that Jonah didn’t literally get swallowed by a whale, or that 8.7 million species weren’t all crammed onto one seafaring vessel by Noah – – and what’s more (hat tip to Ben), the question of historicity in these stories isn’t even the key question. I get that. Understanding genre is important to help us understand that point.

But it does raise the uncomfortable point of how to think about OTHER stories. Especially ones from Joseph Smith’s canon, which didn’t go through generations of revising and oral tradition. In other words, it’s interesting to consider things like Adam Ondi Ahman etc. – how should we think about that?

And the problem with reasoning through unique answers to each particular story or account, is that it starts to seem a bit ad hoc. And again, that’s the way I take Brad’s question here: how to deal with questions like these in a way that doesn’t just look (at a distance) like ad-hoc, apologetic rationalizing?

Don’t misunderstand: I also acknowledge that it’s not “all or nothing”, but it also seems problematic to see every individual story as independent. The nuanced reality lies somewhere in between. My main point is that there’s some value in grappling with these kinds of questions, speaking as a seminary-teaching IMWTBM (In Many Ways True Blue Mormon).

Church tradition, which largely inherited a historicist view, has used Jonah to preach behavior, as most of our preaching tends to do. Again, to quote the FP from 1910, what mattered was not whether Jonah was historical, but whether “the doctrine” was correct. What’s the doctrine in Jonah? God loves the Assyrians just as much as the Jews, and that’s easily applicable to us and true, even if it never happened.