Oral tradition is not text in spoken form. Rather, oral tradition has its own rules of information management which are very different than our modern and literate expectations. Oral tradition is wed to festivals, rituals, temples, dances, songs, and to oral cosmology. Reading a text that descends from this complex of traditions where all the oral stuff has been removed is like reading Egyptian without the Rosetta Stone. It cannot be done without making the text a caricature of its former self.

The Church sets itself up to fail, as the last poster has noted, when it perpetually recites distinct authorship or even literate interpretations of oral traditions as literal fact. I do not believe the Church Correlation does this on purpose. I think almost everyone working on the manuals is doing their best with what they know. Alas, times are changing and the old ways are no longer sufficient for a great many people, and it takes a massive institution like the Church a very long time to react. It has always been this way.

My personal solution would really not be to change the manuals much at all. After all, the lessons tend to be simple outlines of gospel principles. The problem comes when too many Mormon take these outlines as literal and exact, as so many do. A small introduction in front of the manuals addressing Ben S.’s concerns is very much needed. The Church should briefly address the complexities of historical interpretation, the differences between a devotional and historical approach to scripture, and the often messy transcription process as texts descend from generation to another, and from one culture and language to another. In the very least, this would allow people to consider the complexity of history and authorship as they read the text. Such an introduction need not be long either, but simply introduce the ideas.

Meanwhile, people like Ben S. hold the flame. And there are a growing number of LDS who are doing the same.

I’m also in line for your book, and from the outline I read on your blog, I think it’s going to be a significant contribution to our discourse about the scriptures.

I reviewed Enns recently as well, and the reason I appreciate his approach over others is he does a good job of explaining the scholarly consensus where there truly is one, while allowing for other possible explanations for how the scriptures “behave” (one of his favorite terms). The tentative tone of some of his explanations has the effect of helping us take him more seriously.

The Church definitely has a problem in making ill-grounded assertions about history and scripture that set people up to question the Church’s credibility when better information is encountered in other places; this is an issue we all have beaten to death. But scholars have the same problem when they overstate their case, and Enns does a good job of avoiding that trap by encouraging his readers to keep an open mind.

Again, I’m looking forward to the book; from your outline, it looks like one I’ll be buying for myself, with multiple copies to pass along to family and friends.

The following blurb appears on the first page of the Old Testament Study Guide for Home-Study Seminary Students — the manual writers might be interested in your inputs — there might be a reason they chose the traditional approach, and they might share their reason if you ask. Chesterson’s fence and all that, you know. I’m still working from the mindset that they’re good people trying to do a good work, but I know my mindset is not universal. Anyway, your thoughts might make their way into a future edition.

Comments and corrections are appreciated. Please send them to:
Seminaries and Institutes of Religion Curriculum Services 50 East North Temple Street Salt Lake City,?UT?84150-0008 USA Email: [email protected]
Please list your complete name, address, ward, and stake. Be sure to give the title of the manual. Then offer your comments.

Somewhere in all this is the line between the “historical” and the “mythical”. I can’t wait for your book, Ben, so while August seems rushed to you, its a long time to us.

“The most reliable early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark do not contain Mark 16:9–20, and the style of the Greek language used in these verses differs from the rest of Mark. This suggests that these concluding verses might not have been written by Mark, but rather by scribes who added accounts of the Savior’s appearances after His Resurrection to bring the ending of Mark’s Gospel more in harmony with the writings of Matthew, Luke, John, and Acts. Whatever the reasons for the manuscript variations, the Church accepts all of Mark 16 as inspired scripture. Its value is based not on which human being wrote it, but on its inspired testimony of truth (see 2 Timothy 3:16–17; 2 Peter 1:21; D&C 68:4).”

It would have been so easy to take the same approach for Genesis.

We have an assumed dichotomy of “real rather than mythological,” in which “real” has value but “mythological” does not.
But then there’s this, which I assume is meant to logically follow that dichotomy-
“when a man or woman thinks of him- or herself as Adam or Eve”- This is certainly neither “real” nor predicated on historicity or historical accuracy!

I too sustain the manual. I just don’t understand what value the writers see in their narrow phrasing. It’s needlessly simplistic and creating problems for later. It *has* been a deal-breaker for some people because of its implications, and there’s no pressing doctrinal reason to include it. (Genesis does not state Moses wrote it, BTW.)

Moreover, my proposed rewrite is neither lengthy nor overwhelmingly academic. It’s not a burden, an addition, nor require any special training or insight. It’s just a little bit looser.

Jared*, thanks for the comment. I remember that post.

What was bad about Ben’s hypothetical statement that the manual could have made? It seems to me that it takes as much space and acknowledges all the issues he notes in the post.

“Imagine the total worthlessness of a manual that taught the creation stories and then called them myth, and taught that Adam and Eve is a myth, and the flood is a myth, and Job is a myth . . .”

Imagine the “total worthlessness” of a manual that teaches these literally. Ben’s not declaring the Bible false, just that we should consider genre while studying it. I don’t see why that is objectionable.

Imagine the total worthlessness of a manual that taught the creation stories and then called them myth, and taught that Adam and Eve is a myth, and the flood is a myth, and Job is a myth, and David is a myth, and Jesus is a myth, and the cross is a myth, and so forth — the value comes in accepting the stories as real, as seeing real people in them — there is where one finds the faith-building strength of the stories. To whatever degree the Seminary manual tries to build faith, I want to be supportive of it. Whatever it doesn’t include, the readers will be able to learn elsewhere and they will synthesize their learning and grow from it. Just because the Seminary manual doesn’t say something doesn’t mean the students are forever prohibited from learning it.

I’m teaching a lesson to the five-year-olds in Primary later this morning. It will be a simple lesson, but one, I hope, that strengthens faith.

(Years ago, I showed how that statement got edited out of the Brigham Young manual.)

His failed attempts at humor in his most recent book ascribe to the inherent tedium of academic discourse. Now, if he had chosen a more interesting career, such as being a corporate tax attorney (like moi), he wouldn’t have that problem. :-)

FarSide- I’m a big fan of Enns , and have often mentioned or pushed his works in posts. I wish all LDS would read his Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, since so much of what he says applies to Mormons as well.

I haven’t read his newest yet, but the review at BCC made it sound like he’s trying to use humor to reach a new audience. He does have a blog that I follow, which is where I get some of my book suggestions.

Sparks is kind of my new Enns.

Nice post, Ben. Very informative.