120 replies to this topic

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Rob Bowman, on 22 March 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:

The expression “offender for a word” comes from Isaiah 29:21 KJV, which says:

  “That make a man an offender for a word,
and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate,
and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.”

  The usual LDS use of this expression is in reference to those who take unnecessary offense at others because of something they say that the offended person interprets uncharitably. However, this usage distorts its meaning in Isaiah 29:21. The “word” is something said by a wicked person to get someone else in legal trouble, to rob that person of justice in court. It is not referring to a word used by an innocent person that others use against them or that others claim to find offensive. The following modern translations bring out the sense rather clearly:

  

• “who by a word make a man out to be an offender” (ESV)
• “those who, with their speech, accuse a person of wrongdoing” (HCSB)
• “those whose mere word condemns a man” (NAB)
• “who cause a person to be indicted by a word” (NASB)
• “those who with a word make a man out to be guilt” (NIV/TNIV)
• “those who incriminate others by their words” (NJB)
• “those who convict the innocent by their false testimony” (NLT)

  
The popular LDS defensive tactic of throwing up the phrase “offenders for a word” when someone disagrees with their doctrine misuses this text of Scripture.

Under the portion marked in red, the LDS usage stands correct. Evil men use their distortions and lies to make the people not consider for themselves the Book of Mormon. It fits perfectly well.

But nice try, Rob.

[Rob Bowman]

BookofMormonLuvr,

You wrote:

BookofMormonLuvr, on 23 March 2011 - 10:20 AM, said:

Under the portion marked in red, the LDS usage stands correct. Evil men use their distortions and lies to make the people not consider for themselves the Book of Mormon. It fits perfectly well.

But nice try, Rob.

You seem to be the only person who has even tried to defend "the LDS usage." But the usage I critiqued is different from what I had stated was the phrase's meaning (and that you had marked in red). When Mormons use the phrase, they typically mean that their "word" is made the basis for others taking offense. What Isaiah meant was that wicked people speak a "word" to cause innocent people trouble.

I'm fascinated by the fact that the others here either distanced themselves from this usage (claiming, for example, that it isn't a popular or common LDS expression) or tried to deflect the issue altogether. What, is Dan Peterson's use of the expression indefensible? Say it isn't so! But as I documented, the usage goes back to Joseph Smith himself.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Rob Bowman, on 28 March 2011 - 06:49 AM, said:

BookofMormonLuvr,

You wrote:



You seem to be the only person who has even tried to defend "the LDS usage." But the usage I critiqued is different from what I had stated was the phrase's meaning (and that you had marked in red). When Mormons use the phrase, they typically mean that their "word" is made the basis for others taking offense. What Isaiah meant was that wicked people speak a "word" to cause innocent people trouble.

I'm fascinated by the fact that the others here either distanced themselves from this usage (claiming, for example, that it isn't a popular or common LDS expression) or tried to deflect the issue altogether. What, is Dan Peterson's use of the expression indefensible? Say it isn't so! But as I documented, the usage goes back to Joseph Smith himself.

Ok, I see what you mean- and you are correct it is often used in the sense you describe.

[Rob Bowman]

urroner,

You wrote:

urroner, on 23 March 2011 - 04:24 AM, said:

So Rob, is this anything similar to the Evangelical popular misuse and abuse of the the phrase "the gates of hell will not prevail against the church?"

I dispute the premise: my understanding is that the typical evangelical understanding of that statement is exegetically correct: Christ will not allow the church to die. This interpretation is defended in recent exegetical, academic commentaries (see, for example, R. T. France's recent excellent, massive commentary). I realize that not everyone agrees, but that's an insufficient basis for characterizing the usual evangelical view as a "misuse and abuse."

[LeSellers]

Rob Bowman, on 28 March 2011 - 06:49 AM, said:

What, is Dan Peterson's use of the expression indefensible? Say it isn't so! But as I documented, the usage goes back to Joseph Smith himself.

So what?

Lehi

[Stargazer]

Having never read DCP's book, and in my 45 years of church membership having never seen or heard the phrase "offenders for a word" outside of the cover of his book, I have my doubts as to popularity.  But then again, I don't live in Utah and have no use for green jello .  In fact, I despise jello in all its forms.

Rob, I don't see why you're making a big issue out of this.  Surely there are bigger fish to fry?  Have all the other theological disputes gotten stale and you're just trying to throw something else in for variety, or is this obscure phrase out of Isaiah suddenly of greater import than before?

Anyway, in Robinson's "Are Mormons Christians?" he told the story of having given a presentation about the LDS church at his school, only to have a professor kindly explain that he had misled the audience into thinking Mormons were Christians when, "of course", they were not.  Robinson said that he knew that the professor held to a rather esoteric definition of "Christian", and knowing that his audience would not be familiar with it, he sought to disabuse the notion from their minds that Mormons did not believe in Christ, which was in fact was what they would understand the professor meant.  In a series of questions and answers he elicited from the professor what he meant by "Christian", and thus dispelled the accusation (for such it was) that Mormons aren't Christian.

Given that it is a common usage to use the phrase "not a Christian" as an accusation or more uncharitably, as an insult, I think "offenders for a word" is in fact justified, if not in its literal sense as found in Isaiah, but in a perfectly usable allegorical one.  In the same sense, some histrionic might shrilly accuse you of "murder" if you had gone hunting and bagged a pheasant.  

I think you're barking up an empty tree.

[Rob Bowman]

Stargazer,

You're doing exactly what I pointed out most of the other participants in this thread have done: trying to deflect the issue. Forget about how "popular" you think it is. (By the way, my opening post was prompted by the use of the expression by Mr. Bukowski on another thread.) Forget about whether it's the most earth-shaking problem ever to face Mormonism (it isn't). It is a legitimate issue, and I'm still waiting for someone to defend the use of this expression in a way that is contrary to its meaning in Scripture.

You're also changing the subject by complaining about evangelicals saying that Mormons "are not Christian." I'm not defending that statement here. You don't even seem to be aware of the position I take on this question about calling Mormons Christians. The issue here is whether the typical LDS use of the expression "offender(s) for a word," however often that use occurs, is in agreement with its meaning in Scripture. I say it is not. If you agree with me on that point, then be so polite as to say so, please.

Stargazer, on 28 March 2011 - 08:23 AM, said:

Having never read DCP's book, and in my 45 years of church membership having never seen or heard the phrase "offenders for a word" outside of the cover of his book, I have my doubts as to popularity.  But then again, I don't live in Utah and have no use for green jello .  In fact, I despise jello in all its forms.

Rob, I don't see why you're making a big issue out of this.  Surely there are bigger fish to fry?  Have all the other theological disputes gotten stale and you're just trying to throw something else in for variety, or is this obscure phrase out of Isaiah suddenly of greater import than before?

Anyway, in Robinson's "Are Mormons Christians?" he told the story of having given a presentation about the LDS church at his school, only to have a professor kindly explain that he had misled the audience into thinking Mormons were Christians when, "of course", they were not.  Robinson said that he knew that the professor held to a rather esoteric definition of "Christian", and knowing that his audience would not be familiar with it, he sought to disabuse the notion from their minds that Mormons did not believe in Christ, which was in fact was what they would understand the professor meant.  In a series of questions and answers he elicited from the professor what he meant by "Christian", and thus dispelled the accusation (for such it was) that Mormons aren't Christian.

Given that it is a common usage to use the phrase "not a Christian" as an accusation or more uncharitably, as an insult, I think "offenders for a word" is in fact justified, if not in its literal sense as found in Isaiah, but in a perfectly usable allegorical one.  In the same sense, some histrionic might shrilly accuse you of "murder" if you had gone hunting and bagged a pheasant.  

I think you're barking up an empty tree.

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

I point out that Joseph Smith said something, to which you reply:

LeSellers, on 28 March 2011 - 08:19 AM, said:

So what?

Huh? Joseph Smith said.... "So what?"

Run! Hide! Cover your eyes! Maybe the issue will just go away.  

Edited by Rob Bowman, 28 March 2011 - 09:15 AM.

[LeSellers]

Rob Bowman, on 28 March 2011 - 09:14 AM, said:

I point out that Joseph Smith said something, to which you reply:

"So what?"

Huh? Joseph Smith said.... "So what?"

No, I did not claim that Joseph said, "So what." I am wondering why this is so important to you. On any scale, it's trivial, on most, it's a zero.

Rob Bowman said:

Run! Hide! Cover your eyes! Maybe the issue will just go away.

What "issue"?

It's an issue only to you.

Lehi

[Stargazer]

Rob Bowman, on 28 March 2011 - 09:10 AM, said:

Stargazer,

You're doing exactly what I pointed out most of the other participants in this thread have done: trying to deflect the issue. Forget about how "popular" you think it is. (By the way, my opening post was prompted by the use of the expression by Mr. Bukowski on another thread.) Forget about whether it's the most earth-shaking problem ever to face Mormonism (it isn't). It is a legitimate issue, and I'm still waiting for someone to defend the use of this expression in a way that is contrary to its meaning in Scripture.

I am not deflecting it so much as I am rolling my eyes over your making it a big enough issue to pontificate about it here.  And I mean "pontificate" in the nicest way possible, Rob.

And I don't think it is a "legitimate" issue.  I think it is a quibble over hair-splitting.

Rob Bowman, on 28 March 2011 - 09:10 AM, said:

You're also changing the subject by complaining about evangelicals saying that Mormons "are not Christian." I'm not defending that statement here. You don't even seem to be aware of the position I take on this question about calling Mormons Christians. The issue here is whether the typical LDS use of the expression "offender(s) for a word," however often that use occurs, is in agreement with its meaning in Scripture. I say it is not. If you agree with me on that point, then be so polite as to say so, please.

For the record, I don't know your position on whether Mormons are entitled to call themselves Christians, and I wasn't trying to change the subject, I was submitting that particular instance of the prof. telling the audience that Mormons aren't Christians as a sample of something that came close to the original meaning of the scriptural "offender for a word".  Granted that it wasn't actually in a court of law, but I thought people were allowed to use allegory and poetic license in literature?  I thought that you might have caught on to this, given my comparison with the use of the term "murder" in connection with hunting?

Or are you of the school of though that says that one may only use scripture in discourse only to the extent that our use matches literally the meaning of the scripture?

[Stargazer]

Rob Bowman, on 28 March 2011 - 09:14 AM, said:

Run! Hide! Cover your eyes! Maybe the issue will just go away.  

To echo Lehi, WHAT issue?

At most, you can argue that the use of the phrase "offender for a word" is improper word usage and out of context.  Much like the supposed rule of English grammar that sentences shouldn't end in prepositions.

e.g. "This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put." -- a locution necessary to avoid ending the sentence with "with".

You are swatting flies with atom bombs.  Or trying to, at any rate.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your passion.

[ELF1024]

Oh look, it's a molehill...    what's that Rob?   No really, it's not the mountain you think it is....  

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob Bowman, on 28 March 2011 - 09:10 AM, said:

and I'm still waiting for someone to defend the use of this expression in a way that is contrary to its meaning in Scripture.

I suspect you will be waiting a long time then.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 22 March 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:

However, this usage distorts its meaning in Isaiah 29:21. The “word” is something said by a wicked person to get someone else in legal trouble, to rob that person of justice in court.

So, the word "not" is said by a "wicked" person in the phrase "Mormons are NOT Christian" to get someone else (Mormons) in legal trouble, to rob that person (Mormons) of justice in the court of public opinion.

So what exactly is the problem?

Is this the best/strongest criticism Bowman can produce?

[Rob Bowman]

Okay, I get it. None of you has an answer to the problem, so you wish to dismiss its importance.

Henceforth, I expect none of you to start any threads bringing up issues of less than the most monumental, paradigm-shattering importance. That is, if you are going to be consistent.

[LeSellers]

Rob Bowman, on 28 March 2011 - 11:49 AM, said:

Okay, I get it. None of you has an answer to the problem, so you wish to dismiss its importance.

An alternative explanation is that we're so incredibly dense that none of us understands what the "problem" is, nor that it even exists.

A second alternative, one I suggest you might consider, is that you have failed to make the case that this (whatever it may be) is a problem in the first place.

I further suggest that, as the initiator of the topic, it is your challenge to make us see what it is you are talking about, and why it is an issue we should be concerned about.

You have not met that challenge.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers, 28 March 2011 - 06:29 PM.

[ELF1024]

Rob Bowman, on 28 March 2011 - 11:49 AM, said:

Okay, I get it. None of you has an answer to the problem, so you wish to dismiss its importance.

Henceforth, I expect none of you to start any threads bringing up issues of less than the most monumental, paradigm-shattering importance. That is, if you are going to be consistent.

I am fairly sure that I have never used the phrase. The fact that someone may have used it in a fashion that you don't agree with, matters very little to me. If it was a commonly used phrase at the time of Joseph Smith, the definition of the time would be relevant than the Isaiah useage. Colloquial English does have a tendancy to change the original meanings as it evolves.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob Bowman, on 28 March 2011 - 11:49 AM, said:

Okay, I get it. None of you has an answer to the problem, so you wish to dismiss its importance.

Henceforth, I expect none of you to start any threads bringing up issues of less than the most monumental, paradigm-shattering importance. That is, if you are going to be consistent.

Wait, we don't think it is a big deal. You think it is and think that we should leave the church over it? I am genuinly confused. Perhaps you can start over and make your case.

I see what you are saying, but I see no reason to hang all of the truthfulness of the church onto the mis-use of a some what obscure quote from Isaiah.

IOW the church is true regrdless if the quotes is used correctly or not.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 28 March 2011 - 12:44 PM, said:

Wait, we don't think it is a big deal. You think it is and think that we should leave the church over it? I am genuinly confused.

Where did I say that you should leave the church over this point alone?

Is this the standard to which all my posts will be held--that if the point I made is not sufficiently damaging to the LDS religion in and of itself so as to compel members to abandon that religion then the point is not worth noting?

Do all LDS criticisms of evangelical doctrine rise to this level?

What gives?

Edited by Rob Bowman, 28 March 2011 - 03:39 PM.

[urroner]

Rob Bowman, on 28 March 2011 - 07:34 AM, said:

urroner,

You wrote:



I dispute the premise: my understanding is that the typical evangelical understanding of that statement is exegetically correct: Christ will not allow the church to die. This interpretation is defended in recent exegetical, academic commentaries (see, for example, R. T. France's recent excellent, massive commentary). I realize that not everyone agrees, but that's an insufficient basis for characterizing the usual evangelical view as a "misuse and abuse."

Sorry about taking so long to respond.  I have been up to my ears in work and life's problems.

I believe that Evangelicals do abuse and misuse the scripture "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16.18).  They don't do it knowingly, but still, they are ripping it out of context and applying their own interpretation on it.  The "hell" mentioned in it refers to Hades or the place where the dead reside after their death.  It has nothing to do with evilness or Satan.  I have been told over and over again by Evangelicals that the "hell" in this scripture involves a place of torment and everlasting or eternal flames where Satan and all the wicked will be punished forever and ever, without end.  It isn't.

It's just sad that the words "hades" or the place where the dead reside and "gehenna," a place of eternal dwelling and eternal punishment" were both translated as Hell by the translators of the Bible.  They mean very different things, but because of the way the Bible was translated, hades and gehenna are conflated by many Evangelicals and Mormons and other Christians.

The scripture has nothing to do with the Church being overthrown or defeated by mortals, it deals with with Christ and the Church overcoming death and not about the Church being overcome by evil.

Evangelicals do unwittingly abuse and misuse this scripture.