82 replies to this topic

[David T]

+1000000 to everything Ben M just said.

[Senator]

David T, on 24 April 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

+1000000 to everything Ben M just said.

Yep

[Valentinus]

Alan, on 24 April 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

A very astute post and one that resonates with me. I know I hold some unorthodox views, but these are in areas where the scriptures are silent. Where the scriptures are clear, such as the creation account, I comply no matter who says what about ape-men.

Odd. I say this considering the fact that Genesis 1 was written several hundred years after Genesis 2 & 3.

[calmoriah]

why me, on 24 April 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

when missionaries would teach the lessons t the end and afterwards begin the idea of baptism. Now it comes after the first lesson.

FYI, I believe it is Prince's McKay bio that describes how a study was done in England examining those converts who has stayed strong in the faith and those who had become inactive.  One of the things they studied was when these individuals made the decision to become baptized.  According to the results, those who stayed strong were much more likely to have committed to the idea of baptism at the time of the first lessons.  Spending hours and days teaching in depth did not have any long term effect on faithfulness.  Decisions to alter the lessons to make missionary work more effective and efficient were based on these results among other things.

I highly doubt that significant changes in teaching are made without considerable thought and study as well as prayer.  I've seen this in action in regards to setting up lds.org to be a more effective tool when I was asked to participate in studies.

Edited by calmoriah, 24 April 2012 - 11:21 AM.

[volgadon]

Log, on 23 April 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

Actually, I thought I compared them directly to the primitive Christians.  Why is it you do not upbraid Nibley, one wonders?

There are probably dozens upon dozens of people not posting right now that I could upbraid, but at the very least, de mortuis nil nisi bonum. I do struggle to see how tu qoque helps your case any. Perhaps you could explain.

[Valentinus]

cinepro, on 24 April 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

So, was President Kimball in error when he taught that Eve's creation from Adam's rib was "figurative"?

What about the Exodus narrative and the problem of there being no evidence in the historical or archealogical record that Egypt ever enslaved an entire race?

[Valentinus]

Ben M. is the standing champion. Awesome post!

[ERayR]

David T, on 24 April 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:

Very few claim they are, with the understanding the Doctrine is the current authoritative teaching of the Church. I agree its unhelpful when anyone presents their personal feelings/speculations as binding or The Truth without any disclaimer in any Church setting. Or even here. Like those who've I've heard personally express that those who have a Coke every now and then aren't worthy to have a Temple Recommend.

I like David O. McKay's related statement, "I would like to know just what it is that a man must be required to believe to be a member of this Church. Or, what it is that he is not permitted to believe, and remain a member of this Church. I would like to know just what that is. Is it evolution? I hope not, because I believe in evolution."

Each is responsible for his own beliefs.  What bothers me is the attitude of died in the wool evolutionist toward those who do not subscribe.  Those who have the temerity not to believe in macro-evolution are portrayed as uneducated and backwards.  Don't believe me?  Look back at the posts in this forum.   I have my own beliefs in this area, some that perhaps, would be quite controversial and I am neither uneducated nor a fool and I do not think the church should adopt my ideas as doctrine.

I think it is fine if you want to ve in evolution but I can't reconcile it in a rational way with scripture.

[calmoriah]

Quote

Those who have the temerity not to believe in macro-evolution are portrayed as uneducated and backwards. Don't believe me?

I think both sides have been making patronizing remarks to the other, implications that one is less faithful or supportive of the prophets, etc. are as likely to bring on accusations of being ignorant, etc. as the reverse.

[Log]

Quote

One of the challenges with this sort of overview is the rather obvious notion that scripture often repurposes scripture.

That is perfectly consistent with the OP.

Quote

This idea, that scripture is only truly understood in some specific context with some fixed and absolute meaning is itself one of these dominant philosophies of our age (although it is one that is even now fading and being replaced).

The servants of the Lord likening the scriptures unto us, even repurposing scripture, updating, or revising it, and so forth, or the Spirit of God likening the scriptures unto us in our readings, is the proper authority by which such things are done.

Without proper authority, it’s called transfiguring the holy word of God.

But let me point up a different take on this whole issue, because, Ben, I think you've actually gone aside the point, or ascribed to me a view I don't hold.  Granted, I did not expend 100 pages of text in explaining cultural contexts for the production of scripture, and all the different legitimate ways to understand it, and so forth, because I operate on an assumption that people will get my point without requiring each jot and tittle to be precisely outlined.

In John 6, Jesus taught things that were literally impossible to be true.  These teachings, taken literally, caused even his disciples to be offended and apostatize.  They had no other way to understand him, because there he was, speaking to them.  You can't say he doesn't mean what he's saying when he's there, in front of you, saying it, emphasizing it, and repeating it.

Jesus did not call them back to him, and give them the key to understanding his teachings.  Instead, he turned to the twelve, and asked them if they would likewise apostatize.  

At some point, no doubt, he explained things to their understanding after they had proven themselves faithful to him, just as he was wont to do with his parables.  I'm guessing there was no literal "long pork" being served at the Lord's supper.

If the Lord sees that there is a need to explain his teachings further, he will do so, if we are faithful to what we've received; if he sees that there would be utility in applying stories in a way not related to their original context, he will do that too.  

On the other hand, I'm guessing that if we've taken it upon ourselves to mingle the philosophies of men with scripture to soften the harder teachings that conflict with the dominant ideologies and philosophies of our age, he will let us reap the confusion we've sown.

Edited by Log, 24 April 2012 - 12:09 PM.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I don't have anything to add that's not a redundant retread, but I apologize to whoever if any of my remarks came off as patronizing. I tend not to control my sarcastic streak as well as I should. It is an immensely frustrating topic, but I shouldn't use that as an excuse to belittle others' views.

[Log]

volgadon, on 24 April 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

I do struggle to see how tu qoque helps your case any. Perhaps you could explain.

I am struggling as well to understand how you understand me to be employing a tu quoque.  There was the textual accusation you made against me in the which you claimed I was comparing those who disagreed with me with Satan, to which I responded that I had, explicitly, compared them to the primitive Christians.  The subtextual accusation, which you have made in the past, and which I am declining to make textual, is what I was responding to when I asked why you don't rebuke Nibley.

Edited by Log, 24 April 2012 - 12:10 PM.

[Log]

JeremyOrbe-Smith, on 24 April 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

I don't have anything to add that's not a redundant retread, but I apologize to whoever if any of my remarks came off as patronizing. I tend not to control my sarcastic streak as well as I should. It is an immensely frustrating topic, but I shouldn't use that as an excuse to belittle others' views.

You're ok.  Please don't take this thread as a personal affront.  I promise it's not meant to be.

[volgadon]

Log, on 24 April 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

I am struggling as well to understand how you understand me to be employing a tu quoque.  There was the textual accusation you made against me in the which you claimed I was comparing those who disagreed with me with Satan, to which I responded that I had, explicitly, compared them to the primitive Christians.  The subtextual accusation, which you have made in the past, is what I was responding to when I asked why you don't rebuke Nibley.

You had compared them to the early Christians, but you also compared both to Satan, using phraeseology found in the Endowment. That is what I was responding to. Looking at your quote, you claim that those who disagree with you on that topic are merely "doing that which has been done in other worlds," providing the ancient Christian encounter with Hellenistic philosophy as an example of that. I hardly need point out that you are using a phrase from the Endowment, a phrase attemtpting to justify Satan's role in causing the Fall of Adam and Eve. Fairly obvious what you were getting at.

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.

[Log]

volgadon, on 24 April 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

[Y]ou claim that those who disagree with you on [transfiguring scripture to conform to the dominant philosophy of the age] are merely "doing that which has been done in other worlds," providing the ancient Christian encounter with Hellenistic philosophy as an example of that.

Yes, yes I do claim that.  Do you claim differently?

volgadon, on 24 April 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

Fairly obvious what you were getting at.

So, again, how was I employing a tu quoque?  That's the part I don't quite get.

And why, again, do you not upbraid Nibley, in whose works phraseology from the endowments are frequently found, as a word search of the Maxwell Institute website can verify abundantly?

Need I remind you that the Maxwell Institute is part of the BYU campus, by invitation of the Church?

Edited by Log, 24 April 2012 - 12:30 PM.

[volgadon]

Log, on 24 April 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

So, again, how was I employing a tu quoque?  That's the part I don't quite get.

And why, again, do you not upbraid Nibley, in whose works phraseology from the endowments are frequently found, as a word search of the Maxwell Institute website can verify abundantly?

Need I remind you that the Maxwell Institute is part of the BYU campus, by invitation of the Church?

Sounds a lot like "if Nibely can do it, so can I" which in turn sounds a lot like tu qoque. The point is not that Nibley used Endowment phraeseology, the point is that you are using it to compare those with whom you disagree to Satan. That is what I find rather distasteful.

[why me]

calmoriah, on 24 April 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

  According to the results, those who stayed strong were much more likely to have committed to the idea of baptism at the time of the first lessons.  Spending hours and days teaching in depth did not have any long term effect on faithfulness.

We are now living in a different time frame. If people are baptized too early, they have a good chance of falling away because the internet is just a click away. For example, in my area 50 percent of the converts have fallen away within the year. That is quite a lot. Also, when the last convert was ready for baptism, just two days before the missionaries taught him the concept of chastity. That is cutting it down to the wire and in many cases after the baptism, the converts are still getting the discussions. They are not automatically put in gospel essential classes. I think that there is something wrong here.

We need to get that we are now living in different times and we should take care that they at least get several discussions before the request for baptism.

[Log]

volgadon, on 24 April 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Sounds a lot like "if Nibely can do it, so can I" which in turn sounds a lot like tu qoque. The point is not that Nibley used Endowment phraeseology, the point is that you are using it to compare those with whom you disagree to Satan. That is what I find rather distasteful.

It's me asking you what is the principled difference that justifies you holding me to a stricter standard than the Church, or even yourself, holds the Maxwell Institute to?  If the answer is none, then yeah, it devolves into an accusation of hypocrisy on your part, but that's not a tu quoque, since I'm not accusing you of likewise referring to the temple.

You can find the comparison as offensive as you care to.  The point of comparison was doing things without authorization.

Edited by Log, 24 April 2012 - 12:43 PM.

[volgadon]

Quote

You can find the comparison as offensive as you care to. The point of comparison was doing things without authorization.

Someohow I don't quite think you meant to say that they are doing correct things but without proper authority.

[Log]

volgadon, on 24 April 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

Someohow I don't quite think you meant to say that they are doing correct things but without proper authority.

It doesn't matter whether their actions would have been correct if they had had authorization.  The fact is, they did not have authorization.  Nibley once said when God wanted Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit he would have provided the way - that is, there was no inherent sin in eating the fruit - their sin (and that of the distributor) was in doing so without authorization.

These are the things, among many others, that hide in the background of my mind, which cannot be fully expressed whenever I write.  I have read, for example, all of Nibley (at least, the Collected Works), most of the Farms Review of books, many articles from the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, most (if not all) of the talks published on the FAIR website, and so forth, and remember nearly everything of interest (to me) - so I refer to stuff not in evidence - and I don't necessarily attach the same emotional weight to references or types or allegories as you might.

That, combined with my extremely poor writing skills, lends itself to being misunderstood quite a bit.  I yearn for the day when that is no longer the case.

I honestly don't intend to be offensive, even if I intend, at times, to be provocative.

Edited by Log, 24 April 2012 - 01:48 PM.