User:Tgriffy
Who I Am
I am Timothy A. Griffy. I live in Phoenix, AZ. I am a convert to Mormonism.
I received my Associates degree at Phoenix College in 2002. I transferred to Arizona State University, majoring in Religious Studies. Currently, my formal education is on hold. My informal education continues as I voraciously read nearly everything related to religion that I can get my hands on.
I have been without regular Internet access for some time, and will be for awhile yet. So please be patient with me if I take longer than expected to respond to any comments directed at me. I will contribute to the Wiki as often as I possibly can.
My Approach to Scripture
The person who wrote the questions for Genesis 2:6-10 posed some fascinating inquiries that have no easy answers. I have every intention of offering some answers, but as I wrote, I found myself sidetracked into a discussion about different approaches to Scripture. As such a discussion does not properly belong in the discussion section for that passage, I am placing it here for future reference. Please feel free to comment.
Modern readers often assume a certain methodology in interpreting Scripture, which I will call the doctrinal approach. Essentially, the modern Mormon reader interprets all Scripture in light of modern Mormon theology. This is an entirely valid approach which continues an expository tradition dating as far back as we have records. Reading Scripture in light of our modern Gospel framework essentially reads it from the top down and emphasizes the divine aspect of the texts. It is not my purpose to detract from that tradition, but it does have certain weaknesses that I will touch upon in contrasting it with my particular approach.
The weakness of the doctrinal approach is the assumption that all writers of Scripture had the same basic information and understood the Gospel the same basic way we do today. In other words, it projects modern theological developments back onto the original writers. Where conflicts occur, the modern expositor seeks to smooth over the rough edges. Mormon tradition presents itself as both the restoration and summation of all previous dispensations of the Gospel. So although Mormonism did not invent this approach to Scripture, it is not surprising that it continues using the approach and develops it further. Unfortunately, these are assumptions that we cannot necessarily make about the authors of Scripture.
Given their understanding of the Gospel, Latter-day Saints often ask questions that the original authors of Scripture simply did not contemplate. We naturally ask questions based on our modern understanding of nature without realizing that ancient writers had entirely different conceptions about the way the universe worked. For example, when Paul says something about what “nature” teaches, we must realize that what he meant by “nature” is something quite different from what we modern readers mean. Failing to recognize this fact causes no end of misunderstanding and too many unnecessary conflicts. Distinguishing between the author’s original intent and the higher senses of Scripture helps us better understand both the individual author and the Gospel as a whole.
My approach, which I will call the historical approach, emphasizes another aspect of Mormon thought–continuing revelation. Succinctly stated, Scripture writers composed their works using the light they received, without necessary knowledge of how later readers would develop and interpret their records. For example, the author of Genesis may or may not have thought about the Fall the same way Paul did; we simply do not know what he would have made of Paul’s interpretation. Likewise, Paul may or may not have known about later Mormon interpretations of his work. Scripture writers developed their strands of the tradition at different times and spoke to different situations. Modern Mormon thought is a later development that tries to connect the various pieces of its Standard Works into one coherent whole that we call the Gospel. My approach to Scripture seeks to understand this historical process.
The main advantage of the historical approach is that we can let the Scripture writers speak for themselves without having to force their words into an existing framework. If what one author wrote does not entirely dovetail with another, or with modern Mormon thought, this is not a cause for concern. Rather, it is an invitation for reflection about what the various authors saw in their situations and how they tried to grasp God’s hand at work. Scripture writers knew some essential things about God, and they are the same essentials we still grasp today: God is just, God is merciful, God is faithful, God is love. What that meant in their time and their situation may still offer lessons for modern readers, but it does not mean their particular framework was the same as ours.
Therefore, when presented with questions dealing with modern understandings of the Gospel, I will usually separate the different strands of Scripture at play. Then I will seek out the process that ultimately led to modern Mormon thought. The historical approach works its way from the ground up, and emphasizes the human aspect of the texts. Accordingly, the results may strike the reader as a disjointed, fractured mess which they should reject because “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Cor. 14:33). Nevertheless, human history is a messy affair, and Scripture is also clear that humanity’s relationship with God was very messy.
Still, both approaches will often reach the same point. The difference is mostly in the roads taken to get there. Let us say that the traditional approach gives us a view from the forest, but at the risk of missing the beauty of the individual trees. In contrast, the historical approach looks at the individual trees, but at the risk missing the beauty of the whole forest in the mess of tangled branches. Whichever approach we may adopt toward Scripture, we accept those risks because we hope to find the bounteous treasures contained within its words.