Clark is perfectly right here. Alma draws a distinction between temporal knowing and spiritual knowing in Alma 36:4, and in 37:43 when he uses the terms again he seems quite clear on the fact that “spiritual” means something like “typological” where “temporal” means something like “causal” or even “scientific.” (One should note that Alma himself discusses wresting the scriptures during the same discussion with his sons in 41:1.) Post-modern approaches to the scriptures tend to ignore difficulties like the present one because they understand the possibility of reading several hermeneutic possibilities in a single text.

“Wrest” and “wrestle” are closely related words, both having a sort of twisting behind them. When one wrests something, however, one twists it without allowing it to exert a force in return. But when one wrestles, both are twisting together. We are to wrestle with, not wrest, the scriptures. In other words, if we simply twist words to accomplish a purpose of our own–proof texting, perhaps–we are wresting the scriptures. To wrestle with them is to allow them to fight back, to suggest to us as much as we suggest to them, to have a conversation, etc. Cf. Gadamer and Ricoeur.

In fact, a wonderful book for thinking about this question is Andre LaCoque and Paul Ricoeur, _Thinking the Bible_. The former provides an article of strict textual exegesis, and then the latter discusses hermeneutical possibilities in the text. They tackle the texts that are constantly pointed to as “misrepresentations” of the OT by Christians. Very fascinating discussion.

Very interesting post and comments, thanks.

W.W. Phelps suggested that the time of the fulfillment of Jeremiah 16:14-16 was near (“Preach the Word,” The Evening and the Morning Star, May 1833).

A few years later, Oliver Cowdery included a reading of Jeremiah 16:16 in the context of his account of Moroni’s visits to Joseph Smith. It’s a bit unclear whether Cowdery was attributing the reading to Moroni or was offering his own scriptural readings to illustrate the major themes of Moroni’s message, e.g., restoration, gathering, etc. (I would guess the latter). (Cowdery noted that “I have thought best to give a farther detail of the heavenly message, and if I do not give it in the precise words, shall strictly confine myself to the facts in substance” and “I have now given you a rehearsal of what was communicated to our brother….I may have missed in arrangement in some instances, but the principle is preserved, and you will be able to bring forward abundance of corroborating scripture upon the subject of the gospel and of the gathering. You are aware of the fact, that to give a minute rehearsal of a lengthy interview with a heavenly messenger, is very difficult, unless one is assisted immediately with the gift of inspiration.”)

In any case, Cowdery wrote: “And thus shall Israel come: not a dark corner of the earth shall remain unexplored, nor an island of the seas be left without being visited; for as the Lord has removed them into all corners of the earth, he will cause his mercy to be as abundantly manifested in their gathering as his wrath in their dispersion, until they are gathered according to the covenant. He will, as he said by the prophet, send for many fishers and they shall fish them; and after send for many hunters, who shall hunt them; not as their enemies have to afflict, but with glad tidings of great joy, with a message of peace, and a call for their return” (Messenger and Advocate, April 1835).

“The new Bible dictionary is not intended as a revealed treatment or official version of doctrinal, historical, cultural, chronological, and other matters found in the Bible.” – Robert J. Matthews (who was on the scripture comittee), “Using the New Bible Dictionary in the LDS Edition,” Ensign, June 1982, 48

“Many of the items have been drawn from the best available scholarship of the world and are subject to reevaluation based on new research and discoveries or on new revelation. The topics have been carefully selected and are treated briefly. If an elaborate discussion is desired, the student should consult a more exhaustive dictionary.”

In that light, I point out that Elder Richard Hinckley quoted from the Anchor Bible Dictionary in last conference.

Thus even though the paragraph mark is a byproduct of the translation, there is good reason to believe that a new oracle has started.

“To strain or overstrain the meaning or bearing of (a writing, passage, word, etc.); to deflect or turn from the true or proper signification; to twist, pervert.”

The “true or proper signification” surely is the one that God gives it, not the one the earthly author gives it. And God is not limited to one signification for all time and places. Of course, this does make it harder to objectively say that someone else is wresting the scriptures. So I guess we might be forced in many cases to leave that to those with revelation. Not that it isn’t interesting to hear from the bible scholars, just that they are not going to be authoritative in the same way.

But, more importantly, the intricate detail that Packer provides regarding the process of producing the notes, index, and topical guide would be irrelevant if the claim were merely that the decision to begin the project was by revelation. After all, the entire talk is structured as an answer to this hypothetical question:

“I would have willingly endured persecution and trials if I might have lived in the early years of the Church when there was such a flow of revelation published as scripture. Why is that not happening now?”

Reading Packer’s claim that the spirit of inspiration brooded over the entire process of creating the marginalia makes the description of the revision procedure responsive to this guiding question. If, on the other hand, the only revelation was to do the process in the first place, then the rest of the story is irrelevant. Elder Packer doesn’t usually go that far off the narrative rails in his talks; it’s generally best to read his sermons as if they were deliberately composed to make a point — because they almost always are. These considerations argue in favor of seeing his claim of inspiration for the process of generating scriptural study aids as intentional.

Ok, I’ll bite. I’d take it as Boyd K. Packer saying the General Authorities received Revelation to undergo the project of updating the scriptures, not as every single detail in the project being handed to them by revelation, as it is common knowledge that the updates in the scriptures were compiled by multiple committees, with even undergrads at BYU contributing at the time. (My Parents In Law were there.)

And it was a glorious project and the scriptures are excellent. They aren’t perfect, but they are excellent and head and shoulders above where they were prior.

I can believe this project was called forth as part of the Will of God. Boyd K. Packer was much closer to the decision makers than I, so why not.