8/4/2019 The Hierarchy of Truth

1/2

The Hierarchy of Truth

Jared Anderson, 2010

Narratives wield a power measured not in historical accuracy but in effect on the reader. In many

cases, the values expressed in a narrative, and especially the way that narrative moves us to

thought and action, outranks the relationship of that narrative to history. In fiction, truths such as

love, loyalty, following principles and defending freedoms shine even more clearly as they are

unencumbered by the complexities of reality. But when we are reading Lord of the Rings, we

know that we are reading fiction. We dont expect the accounts to match up to history. What

about scriptural accounts, where in many cases the accounts did not literally happen, were not

intended as historical truth, but where readers are deeply invested in current literal

interpretation?

It is in this context theological truth trumps the historical. God works within our worldviews, and

I believe that for the majority of readers of scripture, it is better in most cases for teachers to do

the same. To those aware of the critical issues, D&C 122s encouragement that Joseph is not yet

as Job may seem disingenuous, somewhat like saying you do not have it as bad as Frodo today.

But Josephs revelation helped him endure a difficult situation that did happen, regardless of the

reality of Job.

I thought through this balance while listening to Elder Hollands 2003 General Conference talk on

the Grandeur of God. I noted that in this excellent, uplifting talk, the characterization of Jesus

was taken almost exclusively from the Gospel of John. At first I was troubled that my views were

in conflict with an apostles, but then I placed the conflict in perspective.

The Fourth Gospel illustrates my point well because I see it as the gospel the most theologically

true, but least accurate historically. All Christian literature portrays different degrees of pre- and

post-resurrection understanding of Jesus. Our earliest gospel, Mark, best reflects what really

happened during Jesus life. John seems to be the result of a question such as, If we understood

then what we know now about Jesus, what would his ministry have looked like? Therefore this

gospel best captures the resurrected, eternal Jesus, while leaving the historical Jesus behind. But

the important point is that it is the eternal Lord Jesus that most readers of the New Testament

seek, and it is this Jesus that Elder Holland describes. Again, theological truth trumps historical.

I am not advocating making up inspiring stories and saying they really happened in sacrament

talks. I also realize that this position casts a shadow of Platos noble lie. A critique of James

FreysA Million Little Pieces thoughtfully asked what the problem was with falsified memoirs and

powerfully concluded that such falsehood creates stolen empathywhen we say we experienced

something we have not, we are lessening the suffering of those who have. The simple words I

know what you mean are so powerful because the price of earning the right to say them can be so

high.

There is a difference between putting forth something as true you know is false and working

within someones interpretive framework. We do this in relationshipstact balances the truth of

saying whatever is in our heads at any given moment with the deeper truth of our love for those

we are talking to. This is how God works (see 2 Nephi 31:3), and the realities of current

interpretation also constrain the way we balance theology and history. Is problematizing the

historicity of scriptural accounts worth the price of disconnecting general readership from the

theological power of these narratives?

8/4/2019 The Hierarchy of Truth

2/2

Some biblical narratives lend themselves very well to an approach that highlights both history and

theology. In Daniel, for example, the historical purpose of encouraging readers to remain faithful

in the midst of persecution rings much truer than the message that faith makes you fireproof.

Proper understanding of Jonah as a satire enriches the powerful message that God loves all

people, rather than diminishing it with literal belief in gastronomical habitation and penitent

cattle. The story of Lot and his incestuous daughters is much less troubling when understood as

an ancient redneck joke than as history. The challenge is that the same approach that enrichesthese narratives threatens others, such as the Tower of Babel and Ether, or a critical

understanding of John 21 and D&C 7.

The ideal is to teach both theological and historical truth in a complementary manner.

In the LDS community, unfortunately, I am doubtful that this will happen to a large extent, given

the constraints that modern scripture places on biblical interpretation. You can harmonize the

Documentary Hypothesis or Multiple Authorship of Isaiah with the Book of Mormon, but you

need to unravel literal interpretation of the latter pretty far to do so.

One of the risks of an intellectual approach to the scriptures is when we look down on the

simple interpretation of the masses. I value that simplicity of the truer than true

understanding of the world, see it as needed, even as I embrace biblical scholarship. Thecomplexity of the critical-historical method has value, but also a very high cost. I favor an

approach that is responsive rather than aggressive, nurturing inquiry for those drawn to quest

historical details, while privileging theological truth for the vast multitude who never will be

troubled by such particulars.