[asa] Reply to Glenn

Glenn posted: "Let me reverse the question. How WRONG does God have to be
before
you quit giving him A+'s for his ability to communicate theological
truth?

Can a Mormon claim that his book is true theology while at the same time
bad
history?

It amazes me how people act as if no one ever asked this question. "

That's two questions and a comment.

Reply to question 1. I'd say just a little bit wrong and the A+ is lost.
This poses another question: "Are we sure God is communicating factual
stuff here? Specifically, is He telling us that (1) Adam and Eve were
real people and (2) the flood actually happened?"

If we are not sure of this, then the grade is without meaning, and
possibly disrespectful of God.

My own view is that these early stories are like the story of Job, which
appears to be a fictional morality play, not a sober account of history.

Answer to question 2. The Mormon history appears, by every account I've
read, to be nonfactual. To the extent a Mormon claims historical accuracy
as a basis for his theology,
it would seem that his theological claims ought, properly, to be
discounted. Just as
when a fundy makes theological claims on the basis of the historicity of
the flood. Note that the claims may, or may not, be true; but the basis
for them is not credible.

Comment on the comment. I seem to have answered this before. Plowed
ground. But it really comes down to this: Demand history as part of
Genesis before Abraham and you are possibly asking scripture to do what
it will not do. And that simply leads to a lot of well-meaning but
ultimately futile ruminations.

Burgy
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 14 10:22:00 2006