Aug 9, 2012
What does it mean to still claim that scripture is "true" or "inspired" when we fully recognize that much of it is fictional (parable, allegory, poetic, mythic, or clearly "shaped" to achieve certain effects) or when some scriptural claims clash with other scriptural claims or with historical and scientific facts? Once revelation or scripture has begun to shed for us some of their "authoritative" status and become more obviously a product of human hearts and minds or a divine/human admixture, why does or should it remain compelling? What are other ways to read and gain from prophetic utterance or scripture that don’t view them as the exact words of God? In this episode, Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon and panelists Charles Harrell, Wade Greenwood, and Eric Samuelsen explore various kinds of "truth" and the different rules that govern them. They begin with recently raised issues raised about the standards of truth required by journalism versus more artistic endeavors such as storytelling, drama, and other art forms before turning to the connections the insights gained from these areas have with scripture and prophetic inspiration. They explore insights from theologians from other traditions who have wrestled with similar questions, including various types of inspiration--verbal, conceptual, and motivational--and pre-critical, critical, and post-critical lenses through which one might assess its importance and power. Other questions: Should scripture and the type of inspiration claimed by prophets be seen as wholly "other" from the kind of inspiration we feel from time to time in our own lives? What are the drawbacks and gains from viewing it as radically different or quite similar? Given each of their own study and reflection on scripture that highlights the human fingerprints that permeate it, why do the participants still love and claim to gain much from their continued encounters with it?