The precursors of the historical apostasy from primitive Christianity can be seen reenacted on this board.
In the evolution reconciliation thread, I posted this sentiment:
Quote
And, if the purpose of this thread is merely to congratulate one another on the cleverness and spiritual truths contained in our denatured scriptural accounts rendered consistent with the philosophies of men in our age, may I point out that you are merely doing that which has been done in other worlds - such as when the literalistic primitive Christians confronted the philosophies of their age. We all know which one won that one.
I beg the moderators' leniency here – that post was actually not aimed at any specific poster, as I thought the first eight words rather clearly indicated. Neither was it intended as an insult. It sparked a train of thought that was intensified by interactions I had on another board.
It occurred to me later that the situation paralleled that of the primitive Christians in detail – only the names of the players have changed.
The parallel is that some of the Saints, both ancient and modern, engage in the practice of falsifying the scriptures - call it deliteralizing, allegorizing, or spiritualizing, if you like, but the net effect is denying the literality of the scriptures - in response to confrontations with the dominant philosophies of their ages. It was Greek philosophy anciently, and today, it’s scientific naturalism. This process has as its intent the rendering of the scriptures conformant to the reigning philosophy. This conforming process can be done with an eye towards benefiting the Church, or with an eye towards weakening its authority.
The process of falsifying the scriptures seems to have the effect of weakening the Church’s faith in the Brethren, and certain members and outsiders use this rift and the conflict between the the denatured scriptures with the unyielding, narrow, uncompassionate, crass literalism of the Brethren to pressure the Brethren to allow things into the church which should not be there - anciently, perhaps belief in an embodied God had to go, while icons and Neo-Platonism were introduced; today, perhaps the goals are introducing homogamy, naturalism, women in the priesthood, the worship of Heavenly Mother, or veneration of the Holy Spirit.
After all, falsifying the scriptures is but one step removed from falsifying the Brethren, for what are scriptures but the fossilized words of the Brethren, and if the fossilized Brethren can be falsified, why not the current Brethren?
The interesting thing to me is the falsifiers in the Church may very well believe they are doing the Church a service by strengthening her doctrines against a philosophy they believe she cannot prevail against if her doctrines and teachings are taken literally. These faithful falsifiers also may not believe that the Brethren have got any more truth or knowledge than they do; certainly, they believe the Brethren are unqualified to teach on the topics they touch. That would be the overall attitude of the recent "NOOOO… They mocked the Big Bang" thread.
The next steps are to marginalize, then reject, the Brethren. The seeds are already there.
Understand, I'm looking at the "big picture," not accusing any of you of apostasy.
It is a fascinating time to be alive, to be able to watch history repeat itself before one’s eyes.
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
It is a fascinating time to be alive, to be able to watch history repeat itself before one’s eyes.
I can't quote chapter and verse here, but isn't it official LDS doctrine (based on some passage, or passages in canonized scripture) that history wont repeat itself?
Doesn't it say somewhere in Doctrine and Covenants that the Gospel (or the Church, or the priesthood) was restored for the last time?
Edited by inquiringmind, 23 April 2012 - 08:17 PM.
I can't quote chapter and verse here, but isn't it official LDS doctrine (based on some passage, or passages in canonized scripture) that history wont repeat itself?
Doesn't it say somewhere in Doctrine and Covenants that the Gospel (or the Church, or the priesthood) was restored for the last time?
Definitely so. An interesting question might be why history won't be precisely repeated - what will save the Church?
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Contributor
14,877 posts
Posted 23 April 2012 - 08:24 PM
Log, on 23 April 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:
The precursors of the historical apostasy from primitive Christianity can be seen reenacted on this board.
In the evolution reconciliation thread, I posted this sentiment:
I beg the moderators' leniency here – that post was actually not aimed at any specific poster, as I thought the first eight words rather clearly indicated. Neither was it intended as an insult. It sparked a train of thought that was intensified by interactions I had on another board.
It occurred to me later that the situation paralleled that of the primitive Christians in detail – only the names of the players have changed.
The parallel is that some of the Saints, both ancient and modern, engage in the practice of falsifying the scriptures - call it deliteralizing, allegorizing, or spiritualizing, if you like, but the net effect is denying the literality of the scriptures - in response to confrontations with the dominant philosophies of their ages. It was Greek philosophy anciently, and today, it’s scientific naturalism. This process has as its intent the rendering of the scriptures conformant to the reigning philosophy. This conforming process can be done with an eye towards benefiting the Church, or with an eye towards weakening its authority.
The process of falsifying the scriptures seems to have the effect of weakening the Church’s faith in the Brethren, and certain members and outsiders use this rift and the conflict between the the denatured scriptures with the unyielding, narrow, uncompassionate, crass literalism of the Brethren to pressure the Brethren to allow things into the church which should not be there - anciently, perhaps belief in an embodied God had to go, while icons and Neo-Platonism were introduced; today, perhaps the goals are introducing homogamy, naturalism, women in the priesthood, the worship of Heavenly Mother, or veneration of the Holy Spirit.
After all, falsifying the scriptures is but one step removed from falsifying the Brethren, for what are scriptures but the fossilized words of the Brethren, and if the fossilized Brethren can be falsified, why not the current Brethren?
The interesting thing to me is the falsifiers in the Church may very well believe they are doing the Church a service by strengthening her doctrines against a philosophy they believe she cannot prevail against if her doctrines and teachings are taken literally. These faithful falsifiers also may not believe that the Brethren have got any more truth or knowledge than they do; certainly, they believe the Brethren are unqualified to teach on the topics they touch. That would be the overall attitude of the recent "NOOOO… They mocked the Big Bang" thread.
The next steps are to marginalize, then reject, the Brethren. The seeds are already there.
Understand, I'm looking at the "big picture," not accusing any of you of apostasy.
It is a fascinating time to be alive, to be able to watch history repeat itself before one’s eyes.
Except that there will never be another "great apostasy" such as that which prevailed in the post-apostolic age. The scriptural promise is that the gospel will never again be taken from the earth. The falsifiers might think they are changing the Church to suit themselves, but they will succeed only in excommunicating themselves from it. And this has been going on almost since the moment of the Restoration.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case. Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders. If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least. An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it. ... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
I have been thinking about this issue for some time, but hesitated to bring it up here. Mrs. Gui and I talked about this last week as we have observed a swing towards liberalizing the LDS position on same sex attraction. (This is not an invitation to derail this very interesting issue on to yet another same sex discussion.) Perhaps the sifting time has arrived, as prophesied by Marion Romney.
Bernard
"Are you over Fool's Hill yet?" Warren Coombs Shawcroft, cowboy
Historical religious texts (an interpretations on texts) are falsifiable without undermining the church.
Te church is only beholden to modern day revelation. There is therefore no logical connection between falsifying ancient texts and a "slippery slope" to falsifying the brethren.
In fact to demand the authoritative dominance of all historical scripture over modern day revelation would do more harm to the role of the prophet than falsifying ancient texts would. That is exactly what one is required to advocate when they claim "older" scripture can not be falsifiable.
There is therefore no logical connection between falsifying ancient texts and a "slippery slope" to falsifying the brethren.
I'm not describing a logical process, but a psychological / emotional one. It's all about how individuals see their relationship to the scriptures, the church, the Brethren, and the culture of the world around them.
It's also about what problems individuals think are more important for them to solve.
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
Except that there will never be another "great apostasy" such as that which prevailed in the post-apostolic age. The scriptural promise is that the gospel will never again be taken from the earth.
So, Scott, what do you think will prevent the destruction of the Church? I am in the mood for plot spoilers if you got 'em!
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Contributor
14,877 posts
Posted 23 April 2012 - 08:45 PM
inquiringmind, on 23 April 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:
I can't quote chapter and verse here, but isn't it official LDS doctrine (based on some passage, or passages in canonized scripture) that history wont repeat itself?
Doesn't it say somewhere in Doctrine and Covenants that the Gospel (or the Church, or the priesthood) was restored for the last time?
Doctrine and Covenants 13, the words of John the Baptist to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. "and this shall never again be taken from the earth before the sons of Levi do offer again an offering in righteousness."
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case. Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders. If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least. An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it. ... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Contributor
14,877 posts
Posted 23 April 2012 - 08:51 PM
Log, on 23 April 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:
So, Scott, what do you think will prevent the destruction of the Church? I am in the mood for plot spoilers if you got 'em!
Jesus Christ, revelation, latter-day prophets and apostles, the faithfulness and righteousness of the saints, priesthood correlation preserving the purity of the doctrine, use of modern-day communication technology, the ongoing and final destruction of the wicked largely by means of their own iniquity. There may be other elements; this is what occurs to me at the moment.
It's kind of like watching a football game knowing in advance the final outcome and score.
Edited by Scott Lloyd, 23 April 2012 - 08:53 PM.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case. Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders. If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least. An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it. ... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
There was a move within the Puritan congregations for a liberal view scripture vs. a literalist view of scripture. It has been going on since. What is interesting is that many of the General Authorities over the ages have varied somewhat in regards to natural science and the gospel. We have had geologists who state that it is apparent the Earth is much older than 6,000 years (James Talmage, Neil A. Maxwell). We have had others who espouse a more fundamentalist view (Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie). Some have held to the belief that death did not exist prior to the fall. Others speak of pre-adamites and interpret the death referenced as "spiritual death."
That's one of the beauties of continual revelation. As we learn more about geography, archaeology, astronomy, physics, our leaders CAN issue revised statements if they feel so inspired. Even revised statements which seemingly contradict prior statements given by general authorities or even the scriptures, if so inspired. The Church of Jesus Christ is based on revelation, not canon. And, as stated in the 14 Fundamentals, a living prophet is more important than a dead one.
So, literalness vs. liberalness does not become such an issue within the Church as we are bound by neither view. Rather, we are given the gift of further light and knowledge. And, I suspect, there will be yet many more things revealed.
"There is no real going back. Though I may come to the Shire, it will not seem the same; for I shall not be the same" - Frodo Baggins
There was a move within the Puritan congregations for a liberal view scripture vs. a literalist view of scripture. It has been going on since. What is interesting is that many of the General Authorities over the ages have varied somewhat in regards to natural science and the gospel. We have had geologists who state that it is apparent the Earth is much older than 6,000 years (James Talmage, Neil A. Maxwell). We have had others who espouse a more fundamentalist view (Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie). Some have held to the belief that death did not exist prior to the fall. Others speak of pre-adamites and interpret the death referenced as "spiritual death."
That's one of the beauties of continual revelation. As we learn more about geography, archaeology, astronomy, physics, our leaders CAN issue revised statements if they feel so inspired. Even revised statements which seemingly contradict prior statements given by general authorities or even the scriptures, if so inspired. The Church of Jesus Christ is based on revelation, not canon. And, as stated in the 14 Fundamentals, a living prophet is more important than a dead one.
So, literalness vs. liberalness does not become such an issue within the Church as we are bound by neither view. Rather, we are given the gift of further light and knowledge. And, I suspect, there will be yet many more things revealed.
I cannot fault any statement in this post; I agree with each of them. I do note, however, that many of the issues you speak of in the first two paragraphs are not brought up much anymore. I think it is recognized that deliteralizing the scriptures does have a snowball effect among perhaps those less firm in the faith, on the one hand, as might forcing a doctrinal confrontation with the reigning philosophy of the age, on the other.
Maybe I should quit posting anything about evolution.
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
I assure you that it is you that is ignorant of ancient Judaism. Read the Bible instead of listening to your teachers who appose [sic] the bible. -Echo
i REALLY NEVER NEW YOU WAS A UNLEARNED PERSON. -Lucy Ann Harmon, a facebook anti-Mormon
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
I suggest reading Marcus Borg's book "Reading the Bible Again for the First Time". Its about taking the Bible seriously but not literally. Reformed Theology adherents hate the book (D.A. Carson, John Piper, F.F. Bruce). The old paradigm is slowly dying and the new paradigm and the New Perspective is beginning to prevail and refresh Christianity for the modern world.
Edited by Valentinus, 24 April 2012 - 10:59 AM.
10 a. Collectively and individually, you are loved with an everlasting love that delights in each faithful step taken. God yearns to draw you close so that wounds may be healed, emptiness filled, and hope strengthened.
b. Do not turn away in pride, fear, or guilt from the One who seeks only the best for you and your loved ones. Come before your Eternal Creator with open minds and hearts and discover the blessings of the gospel anew. Be vulnerable to divine grace. -D&C 163:10
The assumption seems to be that certain scriptures were originally penned to be taken "literally" in the sense of "historically", and that any shift in a traditional understanding of them away from that literalism and towards an "allegorical" view is therefore evidence for the beginning of a process of apostasy by "allow[ing] things into the church which should not be there."
This, of course, is simply begging the question, since the entire point at issue is whether or not certain scriptures were indeed meant to be taken "literally" in the first place. I don't think it's controversial to state that there is a tremendous wealth of symbolism, allegory, and poetry in scripture; the difficult part is deciding when the figurative language leaves off and when the historical sections begin, since the idiomatic worldview is so necessarily and thoroughly entwined in every page.
In my view, if the original understanding of a piece of scripture was meant to be received symbolically (for instance, the seven-day-creation meant as a sort of "script" for a Sacred Drama thoroughly drenched in symbolism) then to inappropriately interpret them "literally" or "historically" is actually to support a form of "apostasy". In this case, the reinstatement of an allegorical or symbolic view of these verses would be a Restoration of the greater things, the knowledge of which was hid up because of unbelief that there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews. (This assuming that the scriptures in question weren't simply wrong and subject to complete revision through the process of continual revelation.)
The inevitable slippery-slope argument which claims that recognizing certain scriptures as symbolic necessarily entails throwing out other vital scriptures understood literally simply has no traction; in a text which is clearly not univocal, blanket generalizations are not applicable, since we have to judge each possible instance of allegory on a case-by-case basis. Understanding the Parable of the Sower as a parable does not imply that Christ Himself was a parable, nor that worshipping anthropomorphic Gods of flesh-and-blood is somehow "primitive". Belief in the Resurrection is not harmed by understanding that the four beasts, spoken of in the fourth chapter of John, are figurative expressions, used by the historically-attested Revelator.
As to the particulars of the supposed apostasy currently in the making:
Latter-Day Saints are scripturally bound to believe in scientific naturalism the minute we sustain the Prophetic utterance that there is no such thing as immaterial material and that it is all matter. As Brigham Young said: "My religion is natural philosophy. You never heard me preach a doctrine but what has a natural system to it, and, when understood, is as easy to comprehend as that two and two equal four. All the revelations of the Lord Almighty to the children of men, and all revealed doctrines of salvation are upon natural principles, upon natural philosophy. When I use this term, I use it as synonymous with the plan of salvation; natural philosophy is the plan of salvation, and the plan of salvation is natural philosophy."
Scientific naturalism poses utterly no threat to the existence of historical actors such as individuals within the human family spread over worlds without number; Gods can still exist and still work within the natural world, according to Law. Indeed, the radical Restoration of the Gospel shows that we ourselves exist on the same principles as the Gods, and evolve on the same path as all Gods have done before us: by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until we are able to sit in glory as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power because we have "ascended up on high" and also "descended below all things" in that we comprehended all things. How else are we going to do that except by learning about the natural world through reproducible experimentation? When the Savior shall appear we shall see Him as He is. We shall see that He is a man like ourselves. We with boldness proclaim from the house tops that God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all. God Himself could not create Himself. Intelligence exists upon a self-existent principle; it is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it.
Furthermore, if the Godhead which we worship (worship = worth-ship = "to give worth to") is composed of individual Gods who are nevertheless venerated as One because they are united by partaking fully of the At-One-Ment, then along with the Father, we also worship Christ the Anointed One (3 Nephi 11: "Hosanna! Blessed be the name of the Most High God! And they did fall down at the feet of Jesus, and did worship him."), who continually asks that we receive the Holy Spirit of Wisdom as an equal partner and deny not the Gifts of the Spirit.
This, of course, implies to me that -- barring some weird sort of "patriolatry" -- we worship the Spirit just as much as the other two members; how can they be "one" if we're only worshipping two thirds of them? The hyperactive concern about maintaining the pretense of "philosophical monotheism" is negated in the At-One-Ment of the Divine Council, when all individuals who truly uphold the works of Justice become worthy of worship. We do not somehow risk divided worship by extending our honor to more people than the singular ontologically-unique First Cause God of Greek philosophy.
(In Revelation, for instance, one of these Gods tells His faithful followers that "I will make [others] to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee." Apparently the Servant of All is secure enough in His self-worth not to narcissistically require everyone to worship Him and Him alone. I do, however, seem to recall a different, once-beloved, Lightbearer in the Council in Heaven who did desire sole worship, but we're generally counseled not to emulate him.)
(Appropriately enough for those of us who consider the Holy Spirit of Wisdom to be Lady Wisdom, "veneration", from venerari, "to worship, revere," is from venus, "beauty, love, desire," as in the Goddess Venus. A fine term for the affection given to the Heavenly Mother -- after all, God commanded us to honor our father and mother. As President Rudger Clawson said, "it doesn't take from our worship of the Eternal Father, to adore our Eternal Mother, any more than it diminishes the love we bear our earthly fathers, to include our earthly mothers in our affections.")
Existing on the same principles as we do, Gods are beings subject to the demands of Justice, and would cease to be Gods if they break the Law and exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men. Their Priesthood is withdrawn by the Spirit when the Heavens are aggrieved. And about that Priesthood: while there is plenty in our traditionally male-centric culture perpetuating the view of a "Patriarchal Order", that "Patriarchal Order" as such is never spoken of by name in the scriptures we have accepted by common consent, except to say that the notion is based on a particular government of men. (Sounds rather suspiciously like a False Tradition of the Fathers to me -- philosophies of Men mingled with scripture, perhaps?)
What is stated explicitly about the Priesthood is that it is an "order [...] without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life." Seems like it would hardly be a transgression for women to receive it in order to officiate in ordinances outside the Temple. If anything, I'd consider it a Restoration, considering all the Prophetesses in the Bible such as Deborah the Bee, and the worldwide tradition of Priestesses of the (desheret?) Bee. But of course, we certainly have never, never had the title of "Priestess" used in our Church, especially not by women like Emma Smith, Eliza R. Snow, Bathsheba W. Smith, or Zina Diantha Huntington. Nope.
The question is whether or not the "reigning philosophy" (as if there is just one) is correct. If it is correct, then we gratefully accept it, because as a people we are meant to gather all the good and true principles from the world and treasure them up, lest we not come out true "Mormons." (cf. the discourses of Brigham Young) If there is a truth in heaven, earth, or hell, we claim it, it is ours. Only the truth can set us free, and “Mormonism” embraces all truth that is revealed and that is unrevealed, whether religious, political, scientific, or philosophical. It embraces every true science; all true philosophy. The philosophy of the heavens and the earth of the worlds that are, that were, and that are yet to come into existence, is all the Gospel that we have embraced. Every true philosopher, so far as he understands the principles of truth, has so much of the Gospel, and so far he is a Latter-day Saint, whether he knows it or not. The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God's light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals, and we believe that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation.
As President J. Reuben Clark, Jr. said, "if we have truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not truth, it ought to be harmed." A truth-seeker "must get at facts, he must consider motives -- he must tear off the mask and lay bare the countenance, however hideous. The frightful skeleton of truth must always be exposed" and he "must make every conclusion pass the fiery ordeal of pitiless reason. If their conclusions cannot stand this test, they are false." Applying this test "to his religious convictions," he vehemently concluded: "What he can himself reason out, according to his standards, he accepts unqualifiedly: Whatever cannot stand his tests, he rejects as unfit."
Of course, I realize all this Neo-Orthodox cafeteria-Mormon blasphemy is damnable heresy, and I'm certainly not accusing anyone here of accusing me of apostasy. I'm aware that the next steps are to marginalize, then reject, the members of the Church who disagree with the unwritten creeds. The seeds are already there.
Still, I'm comforted by the words of heretical scientists like Richard Feynman, who noted that "for a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." "It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man."
"Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars -- mere globs of gas atoms. I, too, can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more?"
Edited by JeremyOrbe-Smith, 23 April 2012 - 10:37 PM.
JeremyOrbe-Smith, on 23 April 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:
In my view, if the original understanding of a piece of scripture was meant to be received symbolically (for instance, the seven-day-creation meant as a sort of "script" for a Sacred Drama thoroughly drenched in symbolism) then to inappropriately interpret them "literally" or "historically" is actually to support a form of "apostasy". In this case, the reinstatement of an allegorical or symbolic view of these verses would be a Restoration of the greater things, the knowledge of which was hid up because of unbelief that there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews. (This assuming that the scriptures in question weren't simply wrong and subject to complete revision through the process of continual revelation.)
If such a restoration - or revision- were necessary, in God’s sight, then it would be instituted through the Brethren. That is, I think, the revealed order of the House of the Lord.
Quote
The inevitable slippery-slope argument which claims that recognizing certain scriptures as symbolic necessarily entails throwing out other vital scriptures understood literally simply has no traction; in a text which is clearly not univocal, blanket generalizations are not applicable, since we have to judge each possible instance of allegory on a case-by-case basis.
The fun thing is, the acids of allegory are really as capricious as the individual applying them. Special pleading is required to justify labeling this account or that literal or allegorical or metaphorical or mythological.
Once you start, where do you stop? Clearly, whenever the scriptures have been sufficiently mingled with whatever philosophies one is most taken with.
Quote
Latter-Day Saints are scripturally bound to believe in scientific naturalism the minute we sustain the Prophetic utterance that there is no such thing as immaterial material and that it is all matter.
You have a quixotic understanding of scientific naturalism, and the prophets - none of which, so far as I can tell, equated intelligence, or the light of truth, with matter, or element.
As President Rudger Clawson said, "it doesn't take from our worship of the Eternal Father, to adore our Eternal Mother, any more than it diminishes the love we bear our earthly fathers, to include our earthly mothers in our affections."
Maybe we should write President Clawson and ask if he is advocating the worship of our Heavenly Mother. I personally feel that such a letter is probably unnecessary, as he specifically says "adore" and not "worship." But hey, I could be reading him wrong.
Quote
And about that Priesthood: while there is plenty in our traditionally male-centric culture perpetuating the view of a "Patriarchal Order", that "Patriarchal Order" as such is never spoken of by name in the scriptures we have accepted by common consent, except to say that the notion is based on a particular government of men. (Sounds rather suspiciously like a False Tradition of the Fathers to me -- philosophies of Men mingled with scripture, perhaps?)
I suppose it matters which men it was the government of. In this case, I feel I'm on rather safe grounds in saying it is highly doubtful Adam's patriarchal government was the result of the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.
Quote
Seems like it would hardly be a transgression for women to receive [the priesthood] in order to officiate in ordinances outside the Temple. If anything, I'd consider it a Restoration, considering all the Prophetesses in the Bible such as Deborah the Bee, and the worldwide tradition of Priestesses of the (desheret?) Bee.
Once again, if such an expansion of priesthood is what God wants, it shall come through the Brethren.
Quote
Of course, I realize all this Neo-Orthodox cafeteria-Mormon blasphemy is damnable heresy, and I'm certainly not accusing anyone here of accusing me of apostasy. I'm aware that the next steps are to marginalize, then reject, the members of the Church who disagree with the unwritten creeds. The seeds are already there.
As I have no stewardship over anyone here, I have neither interest in, nor the capability of, denying even the most heterodox LDS a seat at the Lord’s table. I merely feel to point out that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
Now, Brother Orbe-Smith, before you post your next reply, do me a favor and consider this.
One is perfectly free, as a Mormon, to believe howsoever one wishes - there are no formal creeds within Mormonism, beyond "Mind your own business" - and that actually happens to be the Mormon creed, FYI. One is perfectly free to teach one's beliefs, also. These are natural abilities - not even rights - literally fundamental, literally inalienable.
However, how should we conduct ourselves before our brothers and sisters with regards to the Church of Jesus Christ and the doctrines of the Gospel she teaches? What is our duty towards them? What is our duty towards the Brethren?
I will not force any answer on you. I just ask that you consider those questions.
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
I don't hold that the authority which has been bestowed on the Brethren by the laying on of hands to receive (and then administer) the Ordinances of the Gospel imply in any way that their understanding and worldviews -- which were learned line upon line and precept upon precept -- are suddenly infallible the minute they take a stewardship office "above" others. (The eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.)
As such, I believe that they have taught things in the past that are, quite simply, flat-out incorrect. (cf. Priesthood Ban.) It doesn't bother me to recognize this fact; they are fallible men with large stewardships, not God's sock-puppets. They'll make mistakes. We're supposed to be bound by the cords of love beyond death -- we sustain each other through the missteps. However, it makes it my duty to examine what they are teaching, because if they were wrong in the past, they can be wrong today. This doesn't imply that I discount them, or attempt to marginalize them, or think that they have to conform to my personal opinion before I will sustain them; Brigham Young, who taught many things I find to be greatly offensive and downright dumb was still a better, smarter man than I will probably ever be.
But if I nod my head and agree with every last word spoken by other people, then I've neglected the duties which have devolved upon myself to prove all things and hold fast only to that which is good. If I feign agreement with teachings which I do not agree with, then I will have denied my responsibility to contribute whatever truth is in me. If, then, someone takes my feigned agreement as the Truth, and if in the future it turns out that the principle I pretended to believe was in error, I will have contributed exactly that much to the darkness in the world.
I'm happy to be corrected through persuasion, but if I have to be dictated to in every trifle, I will have darkened my mind (and by extension anyone else's who believed my insincere acquiescence) by relying on the Prophets to the exclusion of any other source of information, even from the best books, which we are commanded to search out in order to rediscover the words of Wisdom. D&C 93:53 commands that every member of the Church "should hasten to [...] obtain a knowledge of history, and of countries, and of kingdoms, of laws of God and man, and all this for the salvation of Zion."
If the hierarchy knew everything already, this would be largely a pointless waste of time. Thankfully, we're all in this together; teenagers enrolling into BYU might be the next Apostles and Prophets. If they learn a speculative theory about the Priesthood ban from Brother Bott and then preach it in General Conference thirty years later, does that make it true? No, it is one of the false traditions of the fathers, a philosophy of men mingled with scripture.
(On the other hand, if the teenagers took a course from Hugh Nibley and realized that Ma'at = Sophia = Ḥokmāh = Lady Wisdom = Holy Spirit, and then preached that from the General Conference pulpit, it wouldn't be some big new Revelation, but it'd be much more likely to be true.)
If the eye cannot say it has no need of the hands; if God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Vineyard; if all men learn line upon line and precept upon precept; if we are commanded to "seek [...] diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek [...] out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith"; then it seems utterly pointless if we're meant to just fall in line every time there is a disagreement. At the highest levels of the organization, there have always been disagreements; David O. McKay with evolution and geological time; Reed Smoot and the League of Nations; etc. etc. God is an exalted Man; therefore Humans are capable of learning what He knows -- but we're going to make a lot of mistakes along the way. What matters is that the Brethren were still in harmony -- not plainchant, in which everyone sings the exact same melody, but the deeper harmony achieved when different voices sustain a structure larger than them all.
I know I harp on this quote and repeat it over and over, but it's because no one ever seems to respond substantively to it:
Quote
"We should be scientific -- that is, open-minded, approaching new problems without prejudice, deferring a decision until all the facts are in [...] Neither fear of consequence or any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the Church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences. We should all be interested in academic research. We must go out on the research front and continue to explore the vast unknown. We should be in the forefront of learning in all fields, for revelation does not come only through the prophet of God nor only directly from heaven in visions or dreams. Revelation may come in the laboratory, out of the test tube, out of the thinking mind and the inquiring soul, out of search and research and prayer and inspiration." -- President Hugh B. Brown
It seems to imply that sometimes Revelation comes simply as a recognition of a good idea and an institutionalization of it. It seems to imply that Revelation is the result of a desperate need in the entire community, a community which is able to honestly express their concerns to their leaders, who will then receive binding Revelation for their larger stewardships.
I nowhere implied that any official restorative doctrines or practices or priesthood offices would be instituted through any other means than through the Brethren. In point of fact, I'd be rather annoyed if someone were to "go rogue" and, say, try to ordain women into the Priesthood at the present time without authorization, even though I firmly believe that it is a mark of shame on the Church that it's taken us until 2012 and beyond to realize that they should have been being ordained all along. The rogues do no good; they simply guarantee that the idea will be dismissed as just another assimilationist fringe concern, rather than a deep (and completely, utterly, unnecessary) unfairness (not of some essential doctrine, but mere policy, which could be changed in five minutes.)
The commandments of God "were given unto [His] servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; and inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; and inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent; and inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time."
If the members of our Church who hold stewardship over large areas -- such as Apostles and Prophets -- were beyond question or reproach, this scripture would be useless and pointless, a mere rhetorical flourish. The fact that this is one of the places where it's perfectly safe to interpret the scripture literally is a great comfort to me, since I hope to receive knowledge from time to time myself, and if it was contingent on me being perfect from day one with no period of learning things line upon line, precept upon precept, then I'd be hopeless. The fact that this is rather prominently displayed in the very first chapter of the book of Doctrines which we have Covenanted to keep is even more encouraging.
Quote
The fun thing is, the acids of allegory are really as capricious as the individual applying them. Special pleading is required to justify labeling this account or that literal or allegorical or metaphorical or mythological.
Not so, as I have repeatedly tried to point out. Each case has to be judged on its own terms. There is no "special pleading" necessary to recognize that Revelation is filled with symbolism and allegory. There is no "special pleading" needed to recognize that Daniel's Dream, or Nephi's Vision, or Jacob's Vineyard, or any number of uncontroversial allegories are allegories. The only time when it becomes controversial is when the interpretation of scripture has been filtered through a particular lens in which it becomes the defining feature of the Gospel in need of defense rather than an idiosyncratic viewpoint which might itself be based on false traditions.
If Adam was not a literal person, the Gospel is changed not a whit. We all still would have fallen into our homo sapiens bodies for this mortal probation, and we all would still need to be brought back home to the other world in the At-One-Ment. I frankly think it's more powerful as a symbol of an Archetypal Everyman when we become Adams and Eves in the Temple, recontextualizing our lives with the mysteries of Heaven. Certainly more powerful than hominids contracting a genetic disease by eating a bad fruit, anyway -- and do recall that it is for our own sins, not Adam's transgression, that we will be held accountable.
Quote
You have a quixotic understanding of scientific naturalism, and the prophets - none of which, so far as I can tell, equated intelligence, or the light of truth, with matter.
D&C 131:7 "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter."
If the light of truth were not some form of matter or information or quantum bit of energy or something, and yet one asserted that it existed at all, it would be some sort of "immaterialism", which is a complete absurdity. Saying something is immaterial is akin to saying it doesn't exist.
Quote
"Maybe you should take that up with the Brethren, who have consistently taught that we are commanded to worship the Father in the name of Christ – and have never taught, so far as I am aware, that we should worship the Spirit, nor our Heavenly Mother."
I have provided scriptural references which show believers worshipping Christ with no complaint from Him, and Christ promising that others beside Him and the Father will be worshipped. Again, it makes no sense to think of the three Gods taking part in the Godhead as being equally One while only worshipping a single one of them alone.
As far as the Spirit and Mother in Heaven goes, I personally believe some of the Brethren are mistaken on this point, while also recognizing that my own belief -- while, I think, very well-founded -- is speculative. I don't exactly teach it in my Elder's Quorum class, but I do believe that the patriarchal societies of archaic Israel and Greece (and later cultures such as our own) repeatedly rejected the Heavenly Mother in favor of a First Cause of a God rather than a loving Parent -- to their loss. I recognize that it is an idiosyncratic viewpoint, but because I believe that Lady Wisdom = the Holy Spirit of Wisdom, then I think the repeated calls to remember the Spirit are a result of this apostasy from recognizing a female divinity fully equal to the male.
I think that the Deuteronomist reediting of the Bible cuts out a lot of mention of Her in the guise of Asherah, or relegates Her to (literalists should like this) a mere allegorical hypostasis when they couldn't remove Her altogether (the Asherah, you'll recall, had stood legitimately for 236 of the 370 years the Temple lasted.) I think that when Christ taught His disciples to pray in Matthew 6:9 and Luke 11:2 that he was tailoring the ritual to a people who simply would not have countenanced praying to a female -- in which case, praying to the Father alone was a step up from idols.
Since not much has changed with the philosophies of Men in the past 2000 years, I don't think it's any surprise to still see reticence to give worth to a female divinity just as much as a male ( = "Patriolatry", despite my vast disagreements with the Toscanos), despite the constant, unending admonitions in the scriptures that the Father, the Holy Spirit of Wisdom, and the Child Anointed One are all One God. ("God is a Spirit," according to John 4:24, even if He is tabernacled -- the Book of Mormon shows that He is the Great Spirit worshipped by the Native Americans, who conveniently enough also believe in female divinities. The Great Spirit, and the Spirit of Wisdom.)
I also think that a great deal of the symbolism of the New Testament is considerably clarified if John's mistranslation (cf. such popularizations as Robert Graves' The White Goddess, which, though dated, is still useful) is understood in a wider context and the Holy Spirit of Wisdom who offers Rebirth is seen as female. I think that part of Christ's Mission was to Restore/Renew Lady Wisdom, who had been lost from the First Temple, a loss which the writers of banned books such as Enoch lamented. I think this Apostasy is clearly stated in many places such as Acts 7:51 "¶Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye."
And to fight this, I think Christ states many times that we as Christians have a duty to accept Her, such as in John 20:21, which says: "Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost." (Receive the "spirit", the "ruach", the "wind" brooding like a Dove -- a Goddess symbol -- over the Waters of Creation, Bird-faced Asherah/"She Who Treads On The Sea", the Tree of Life, the Burning Bush, the Menorah bearing the Light of Christ to the world.)
To argue that this is not a "traditional" teaching is to miss the point, which is that the "traditional" teachings are, like the Bible Dictionary, "subject to reevaluation based on new research and discoveries." (cf. Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.) I think it's a considerable witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon that the Prophets consistently admonish us to remember the Gift of the Holy Spirit of Wisdom, consistently associated with bearing Fruit as the Tree of Life. I think it's a considerable witness to the truth of the Pearl of Great Price that the Earth Herself is personified as part of that same prehistoric Goddess imagery. I think Joseph Smith really did restore the "primitive" idea that God "imparteth his word by angels unto men, yea, not only men but women also."
Quote
Maybe we should write President Clawson and ask if he is advocating the worship of our Heavenly Mother. I personally feel that such a letter is probably unnecessary, as he specifically says "adore" and not "worship." But hey, I could be reading him wrong.
It's quite possible you are. Clawson, born in 1857, is assumed to have written that in the September Millenial Star in 1910. Adore: late 14th century aouren, "to worship, pay divine honors to, bow down before," from Old French aorer "to adore, worship, praise" (10th century), from Latin adorare "speak to formally, beseech, ask in prayer," in Late Latin "to worship," from ad- "to" + orare "speak formally, pray" (see orator). Meaning "to honor very highly" is attested from 1590s; weakened sense of "to be very fond of" emerged by 1880s. Meaning that "adore" and "worship" were most likely essentially equivalent during more than twenty of his formative years. So honestly, what's the difference? His entire point was that honoring one person doesn't take away honor from another. Isn't that what the At-One-Ment is all about? A reconciliation of all Uncreated Intelligences?
Quote
I suppose it matters which men it was the government of. In this case, I feel I'm on rather safe grounds in saying it is highly doubtful Adam's patriarchal government was the result of the philosophies of men mingled with scriptures.
Because Adam never transgressed from the laws of Justice, ever.
(By the way, Abraham 1:26 says the tradition was established "by the fathers [ie, not necessarily Adam himself] in [ie, [i]during[/i] ] the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign," which was "even in the reign of Adam." The two are not necessarily connected; specifically, the "government" which reigned as a patriarchy is only explicitly said to be Ham's (Abraham 1:25). At any rate, I'm not sure why Adam's sin of inequity, if indeed it was his, is supposed to justify our own. Hugh Nibley showed quite clearly in Abraham In Egyptthe chaos which resulted when the Egyptians tried to claim patriarchal authority through the matriarchal line -- the point is, it should never have gotten to the point where only one gender was seen as the arkhos and people are forced into the Devil's Dilemma of choosing between Gog and Magog.)
So, that's all I got. At this point, everyone knows where everyone stands, and if this enormous post doesn't help, it's just a pointless circle and I won't feel too obligated to respond further.
Edited by JeremyOrbe-Smith, 24 April 2012 - 04:44 AM.
0
This topic is locked
