James Whiteâ??s YouTube diatribeâ?¦

[jwhitlock]

Do you think these (written) verses from D&C 1 contain errors?

Is it a complete representation, conceptually, of the divine intent, in and of itself?

No.

And neither is any verse in the Bible that I can think of.

Let me give you another verse to ponder upon in the same vein.

"Jesus wept." (John 11:35)

What's the scripture clear about? It's clear that Jesus wept.

What do we learn about the divine intent from it? Not much at all. What was Jesus feeling? Why, exactly was He weeping? What were the yearnings of His heart? What were His motivations in weeping? What does His weeping mean for me and how can I relate to it? Why was that verse included in the scripture and what was God's intent in including it? And thousands of other questions...

You can look at the scriptures on either side, you can speculate as to the answers to those questions, but you can't determine those answers from the written scripture itself. You never, ever will be able to do so.

The only way you will be able to understand what "Jesus wept." really means is when the Spirit shows Jesus weeping to your spirit, and you start to understand what God means by all of this. That understanding doesn't come from reading "inerrant" scripture; it comes from reading the words, and the letting the Spirit show you what God means by it all. And the Spirit shows you what God feels about you personally when "Jesus we[eps]."

The concept that mere written words on a piece of paper, or a piece of parchment, written in Greek, or Hebrew, or English, or whatever, cannot in and of themselves show us what God intends, should be a simple one to comprehend. It's common sense. It's what we all know from all the reading that we have ever done. Whenever we have been touched by the written word, it was because it was a spiritual experience, an experience involving the power of the Spirit making up for the utter inadequacy of the written word, which only serves as a catalyst to help the process to start to happen.

It's really just that simple. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

[jwhitlock]

Hi j--

You wrote, "He [God] doesn't communicate with us in writing."

Thus, as I concluded (justifiably), you don't believe that God communicates with us, well, in writing. Thus, God does not communicate with us in the written text of BoM.

I don't know how much closer I can get to essence of this statement.

Is it, or is it not, your position that God does not communicate with us in the written text of BoM?

Best.

cks

PS. No, man, I'm not intentionally misreading you. I do appreciate the apparent performative instantiation taking place here, though. That's sort of funny.

You need to re-read the post. It's not a debate; you're missing it.

Here it is:

Show me something written directly by God's hand.

[cksalmon]

Hi j--

You wrote:

You need to re-read the post. It's not a debate; you're missing it.

Here it is:

Show me something written directly by God's hand.

"Directly by God's hand" is doubly irrelevant from my perspective.

I'm not attempting debate, here, either.

But, in order to be able to respond to your points, I need some clarification.

Is it, or is it not, your position that God does not communicate with us in the written text of BoM?

You stated that God does not communicate with us in writing. I really don't think it's too much to ask, then, in light of your clear statement, whether or not it is your position that God does not communicate with us in the written text of BoM. It's really a yes or no question. If your prior statement (He [God] doesn't communicate with us in writing) is to be taken at face value, then I already know the answer. I'm just asking you to phrase a clear, unambiguous response to the question: "Is it, or is it not, your position that God does not communicate with us in the written text of BoM?"

Best.

cks

PS. It seems to me that, in this thread, when I have asked certain direct questions of LDS posters, I'm told that I don't understand the point of the discussion. I'm just asking for an answer to the question. I've laid out my motivation for asking above.

PPS. Well, see the question above.

[jwhitlock]

"Directly by God's hand" is doubly irrelevant from my perspective.

Then I have to assume that you agree that God hasn't written any scripture directly by His own hand. All scripture was written directly by humans. Correct?

But, in order to be able to respond to your points, I need some clarification.

Is it, or is it not, your position that God does not communicate with us in the written text of BoM?

It can't be answered with a yes or no.

Scripture - including the Bible - is an attempt to write down what God communicated directly to someone. The attempt is made for our benefit, but the communication is inadequate to fully understand the divine intent. The scripture is a partial communication with us, and it is by no means an inerrant one.

PS. It seems to me that, in this thread, when I have asked certain direct questions of LDS posters, I'm told that I don't understand the point of the discussion. I'm just asking for an answer to the question. I've laid out my motivation for asking above.

Part of the problem may be that you're not actually answering certain questions directly. Sometimes the best we're getting is "it's irrelevant" without an answer to the question. At that point, the discussion hangs.

[mfbukowski]

Hi mfb--

(1) Not exactly. Divisions would decrease, to be sure. (I'm highly skeptical, of course, that one might ever--in the exegetical equivalent of Buddha 'neath the Bodhi--come reliably to know himself as free of all readerly prejudices.)

(2) Well, not exactly. I don't think cultural context necessarily makes language ambiguous; rather, it makes the interpretation of language hazardous and subject to ambiguity. I'd go much further than you have here, though, and suggest that language itself, as a matter of course, comprises ambiguating features: in broad scope (lexical polysemy, for example) and narrow (say, amphiboly).

None of which, to my mind, necessitates that written communication inevitably contains "errors." To quote DW, "The issue of ambiguity rests with each individual who read the autographa." And, I would add that, at the very least insofar as, for example, Nestle-Aland faithfully reflects the original readings, the issue of ambiguity similarly rests with the reader.

To sum up: I'm not defending the position that inerrant interpretation is inevitable or even always possible. I'm defending the belief that errant communication is not inetivable (or, to put it another way, that error-free communication is intrisically impossible).

Best.

cks

PS. I'd like to develop an example relevant to this discussion that, oddly enough (considering how far afield we are), relates to this thread's OP. And, since we have at least one recent poster (marysson) who has chosen, against all known logic, to address the actual topic of this thread, perhaps my example should be left for a new one.

Well ok with me if we "take it outside"

But I tend to think that this very line of discussion shows that it is awfully hard to communicate about this stuff. I am gonna stick with Wittgenstein. If we could sit down over lunch eyeball to eyeball gesturing and and just talking, I bet we would eventually agree. A bricklayer and his helper don't get confused when one says "Brick" to the other, and then says "trowel". The job gets done.

But when you are reading highly abstract and somewhat vague religious stuff written hundreds or thousands of years ago by who knows who, in another language, and calling it inerrant, to me that is another major issue. Pardon the philosophical jargon

[Bill Hamblin]

(3) But, I didn't ask if D&C is error-free. I asked you if these specific verses--

--contain errors. You have not answered this question.

Best.

cks

See #469.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill (or shall I call you Dr. Bill?), your statements about inerrancy of scripture becoming more and more errant as time goes by is just simply too depressing for words.Surely you can give us all an out from all this. Or perhaps your own words are becoming more errant as time goes by?hehBeowulf

YOU can call me Dr. Hamblin.

Hi Dr. Hamblin--You wrote:So, is it your position that these verses----contain errors? I take it that that is your belief. Best.cks

This is getting nowhere fast. If you can't understand what I'm talking about, why do you think any form of communication can be inerrant. I've explained as clearly as I can. It is pointless to go on repeating myself.

[cksalmon]

Then I have to assume that you agree that God hasn't written any scripture directly by His own hand. All scripture was written directly by humans. Correct?

Part of what I mean is that "God" the Father doesn't have hands, man.

It can't be answered with a yes or no.

Okay. This is sort of, I think, reflective of my complaint, j.

Scripture - including the Bible - is an attempt to write down what God communicated directly to someone. The attempt is made for our benefit, but the communication is inadequate to fully understand the divine intent. The scripture is a partial communication with us, and it is by no means an inerrant one.

So the unargued argument goes, I suppose. I haven't seen that argument cogently argued here, yet. It has been readily assumed and thrown about here and there, but not demonstrably shown.

Part of the problem may be that you're not actually answering certain questions directly. Sometimes the best we're getting is "it's irrelevant" without an answer to the question. At that point, the discussion hangs.

I've attempted to answer direct questions. Others manifestly have not. In point of fact, there has been the indication that my questions cannot be answered with a yes or a no. I've asked direct questions and yet have not received direct answers.

One example of this phenomena that springs to mind is this:

I asked you:

Is it, or is it not, your position that God does not communicate with us in the written text of BoM?

You answered:

It can't be answered with a yes or no.

I think we can classify this as "not actually answering certain questions directly."

Your attempted clarification employed what, again, to my mind, is not at all a self-evident assertion (viz., "and it is by no means an inerrant one").

Best.

cks

[mfbukowski]

You stated that God does not communicate with us in writing. I really don't think it's too much to ask, then, in light of your clear statement, whether or not it is your position that God does not communicate with us in the written text of BoM. It's really a yes or no question. If your prior statement (He [God] doesn't communicate with us in writing) is to be taken at face value, then I already know the answer. I'm just asking you to phrase a clear, unambiguous response to the question: "Is it, or is it not, your position that God does not communicate with us in the written text of BoM?"

I am sticking my nose in here in a conversation which is not even mine, but the answer is "it depends on what you mean". If he is to simply answer "yes" the implication that could be taken is that the BOM is not inspired. If he answers "no", he "loses the debate". So this is itself an example of the ambiguity of language. The real answer is neither yes nor no, and yet you have phrased the question in such a way that he cannot answer that way. To me, even though you say this is not a debate, it sure looks like you want it to be.

Again, I apologize for sticking my nose into your conversation.

[Bill Hamblin]

I've attempted to answer direct questions. Others manifestly have not. In point of fact, there has been the indication that my questions cannot be answered with a yes or a no. I've asked direct questions and yet have not received direct answers.

You mean like

Granting for the sake of argument that God has inerrantly expressed his message in lost manuscripts--but that none of the actual surviving manuscripts are in fact inerrant--how does that change, for practical exegetical purpose, the way we need to interpret the text of the Bible. What I find among most Evangelicals, like Billy, is a mouthing of the inerrant autograph manuscript assertion, but in practice, they treat the surviving manuscripts as inerrant. Many is the time I've heard Evangelicals claim that the DSS biblical texts support the Masoretic text; of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Furthermore, prophecies, like the "virgin shall conceive" actually come from the LXX rather than the Masoretic. I have never seen this problem cogently addressed by Evangelicals (though, admittedly, I haven't actually searched very hard.)

Could you point me your responses to these questions?

Which specific question to me have I failed to answer?

[cksalmon]

See #469.

Hi Dr. Hamblin--To paraphrase you, Merely referencing a chronologically prior post does not mean that you've actually answered my question.My question is very direct (and it is not addressed at all in #469): Does D&C 1:31-32 contain errors?

This is getting nowhere fast. If you can't understand what I'm talking about, why do you think any form of communication can be inerrant. I've explained as clearly as I can. It is pointless to go on repeating myself.

It's not pointless to answer the question, though, surely, which I can't see that you have. That you have not answered such a direct question does not lead me to believe that no form of communication can be inerrant. It's just not, in any way, logically entailed. Again: If you're interested, Does D&C 1:31-32 contain intrinsic errors?Best.cks

Which specific question to me have I failed to answer?

Does D&C 1:31-32 contain intrinsic errors?

[mfbukowski]

Does D&C 1:31-32 contain intrinsic errors?

I think it has been answered. Clearly it is ambiguous like all written scripture. That has already been shown and agreed to. I would say no errors.

Ambiguity is not "error". Surely you know the difference -- are you saying that no scriptures are ambiguous? That seems to be a radical escalation of your position.

[cksalmon]

Hi Dr. Hamblin--

Could you point me your responses to these questions?

Do you wish me to point you to any and all of my responses, in this thread, that just might be relevant here? Not interested.

It would be much less labor intensive for me, personally, if you'd just go back, read them, quote me as you feel inclined, and ask any clarifying questions about what I've written, insofar as you feel inclined to do so. Gotta say: I'm definitely leaning in that direction. Not a demand, of course; just a statement. No, I'm not going to back-scour this thread for potentially relevant responses to your above query. I will, certainly, respond to your interrogation of specific statements I've made herein.

Best.

cks

[Bill Hamblin]

Hi Dr. Hamblin--

Do you wish me to point you to any and all of my responses, in this thread, that just might be relevant here? Not interested.

It would be much less labor intensive for me, personally, if you'd just go back, read them, quote me as you feel inclined, and ask any clarifying questions about what I've written, insofar as you feel inclined to do so. Gotta say: I'm definitely leaning in that direction. Not a demand, of course; just a statement. No, I'm not going to back-scour this thread for potentially relevant responses to your above query. I will, certainly, respond to your interrogation of specific statements I've made herein.

Best.

cks

So now it has degenerated to arguing who is and who is not answering the others questions. This has become a waste of time.

[Bill Hamblin]

Hi Dr. Hamblin--To paraphrase you, Merely referencing a chronologically prior post does not mean that you've actually answered my question.My question is very direct (and it is not addressed at all in #469): Does D&C 1:31-32 contain errors?

As I said before:

Well, for starters:

1- What is sin? Any sin at all? Major sins only?

2- What is repentance?

3- What are the commandments?

There is certainly room for ambiguity here. Hence, no inerrancy. It is not that the text is or is not-error free as you like to pose the question. It is that there is ambiguity and uncertainty with every text. With human language it cannot be otherwise. (Hence, for example, the Rabbis produced the Mishnah to clarify the Torah, and the Talmud to clarify the Mishnah, with the result that Rabbis are still squabbling in endless pilpul about what the Talmud means.)

At any rate, as JW has noted, in the real world, there is no unity of interpretation. There is much less unity now than there was during the early Reformation, and less unity in the Reformation than there was in Medieval Catholicism. As more texts are discovered, more and more differences in the texts appear, and as time progresses, despite the huge advances in linguists, textual criticism, etc, there is increasing disunity of interpretation rather than increasing unity. So, whatever the reality of a hypothetical lost inerrant ur-text, the reality of what we have to deal with on a day-to-day basis is: there is no such thing as an inerrant text.

[LifeOnaPlate]

CK, I for one (among several others here) would greatly appreciate your answering Hamblin's question on practicality. Your avoidance only leaves one to assume you don't have an answer you feel comfortable relating.

Granting for the sake of argument that God has inerrantly expressed his message in lost manuscripts--but that none of the actual surviving manuscripts are in fact inerrant--how does that change, for practical exegetical purpose, the way we need to interpret the text of the Bible. What I find among most Evangelicals, like Billy, is a mouthing of the inerrant autograph manuscript assertion, but in practice, they treat the surviving manuscripts as inerrant. Many is the time I've heard Evangelicals claim that the DSS biblical texts support the Masoretic text; of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Furthermore, prophecies, like the "virgin shall conceive" actually come from the LXX rather than the Masoretic. I have never seen this problem cogently addressed by Evangelicals (though, admittedly, I haven't actually searched very hard.)

[cksalmon]

Hi mfb--

I think it has been answered.

No, it hasn't been.

Clearly it is ambiguous like all written scripture. That has already been shown and agreed to. I would say no errors.

No, it hasn't already been shown at all. It's been, perhaps, assiduously avoided. Nor has it been agreed to.

Ambiguity is not "error". Surely you know the difference -- are you saying that no scriptures are ambiguous? That seems to be a radical escalation of your position.

Preaching to the choir, mfb. Of course I know the difference. In point of fact, I've been advocating for that precise distinction since the beginning of my participation in this thread! With no disrepect meant, it seems as if you might not have been tracking with the discussion, mfb. You have certainly not witnessed a radical escalation of my position. It's been consistent throughout.

Best.

cks

[cksalmon]

Hi Dr. Hamblin--

So now it has degenerated to arguing who is and who is not answering the others questions. This has become a waste of time.

No. I indicated quite honestly that I'm not interested in combing through the past several pages to dredge up responses that just might be applicable to your question. You're more than welcome to ask any and all clarifying questions about something I wrote. Again, I'm more than willing to answer your specific questions about what I've written.

I've asked you this very specific question multiple times now, but I'll ask once more:

Dr. Hamblin:

Does D&C 1:31-32 contain intrinsic errors?

Best.

cks

[mfbukowski]

Hi mfb--

No, it hasn't been.

No, it hasn't already been shown at all. It's been, perhaps, assiduously avoided. Nor has it been agreed to.

Preaching to the choir, mfb. Of course I know the difference. In point of fact, I've been advocating for that precise distinction since the beginning of my participation in this thread! With no disrepect meant, it seems as if you might not have been tracking with the discussion, mfb. You have certainly not witnessed a radical escalation of my position. It's been consistent throughout.

Best.

cks

Come on! He's posted it twice!

Well, for starters:

1- What is sin? Any sin at all? Major sins only?

2- What is repentance?

3- What are the commandments?

There is certainly room for ambiguity here. Hence, no inerrancy. It is not that the text is or is not-error free as you like to pose the question. It is that there is ambiguity and uncertainty with every text. With human language it cannot be otherwise. (Hence, for example, the Rabbis produced the Mishnah to clarify the Torah, and the Talmud to clarify the Mishnah, with the result that Rabbis are still squabbling in endless pilpul about what the Talmud means.)

At any rate, as JW has noted, in the real world, there is no unity of interpretation. There is much less unity now than there was during the early Reformation, and less unity in the Reformation than there was in Medieval Catholicism. As more texts are discovered, more and more differences in the texts appear, and as time progresses, despite the huge advances in linguists, textual criticism, etc, there is increasing disunity of interpretation rather than increasing unity. So, whatever the reality of a hypothetical lost inerrant ur-text, the reality of what we have to deal with on a day-to-day basis is: there is no such thing as an inerrant text.

That makes 3! I know you are usually a true blue seeker, but it really looks like you are avoiding the issue, and I am not the only one who thinks so!

So how is this inadequate? It nails the issue perfectly as far as I am concerned.

[cksalmon]

Hi Life--

CK, I for one (among several others here) would greatly appreciate your answering Hamblin's question on practicality. Your avoidance only leaves one to assume you don't have an answer you feel comfortable relating.

Already asked and answered, Life (among several undisclosed others). See above. (You are a couple pages in the past, I guess; or, you just didn't like my answer.) I was completely comfortable, in fact, I luxuriated, in relating the answer I previously related in answer to the question you erroneously believe I avoided answering.

I know it's a long thread, but, man. Isn't it time to split this thing?

Best.

cks

[Bill Hamblin]

I've asked you this very specific question multiple times now, but I'll ask once more:

Dr. Hamblin:

Best.

cks

I've thought it through, and here's my answer.

Well, for starters:

1- What is sin? Any sin at all? Major sins only?

2- What is repentance?

3- What are the commandments?

There is certainly room for ambiguity here. Hence, no inerrancy. It is not that the text is or is not-error free as you like to pose the question. It is that there is ambiguity and uncertainty with every text. With human language it cannot be otherwise. (Hence, for example, the Rabbis produced the Mishnah to clarify the Torah, and the Talmud to clarify the Mishnah, with the result that Rabbis are still squabbling in endless pilpul about what the Talmud means.)

At any rate, as JW has noted, in the real world, there is no unity of interpretation. There is much less unity now than there was during the early Reformation, and less unity in the Reformation than there was in Medieval Catholicism. As more texts are discovered, more and more differences in the texts appear, and as time progresses, despite the huge advances in linguists, textual criticism, etc, there is increasing disunity of interpretation rather than increasing unity. So, whatever the reality of a hypothetical lost inerrant ur-text, the reality of what we have to deal with on a day-to-day basis is: there is no such thing as an inerrant text.

Gee, this is fun. Let's do it again!

[Bill Hamblin]

Just in case it's not clear.

Well, for starters:1- What is sin? Any sin at all? Major sins only? 2- What is repentance?3- What are the commandments?There is certainly room for ambiguity here. Hence, no inerrancy. It is not that the text is or is not-error free as you like to pose the question. It is that there is ambiguity and uncertainty with every text. With human language it cannot be otherwise. (Hence, for example, the Rabbis produced the Mishnah to clarify the Torah, and the Talmud to clarify the Mishnah, with the result that Rabbis are still squabbling in endless pilpul about what the Talmud means.)At any rate, as JW has noted, in the real world, there is no unity of interpretation. There is much less unity now than there was during the early Reformation, and less unity in the Reformation than there was in Medieval Catholicism. As more texts are discovered, more and more differences in the texts appear, and as time progresses, despite the huge advances in linguists, textual criticism, etc, there is increasing disunity of interpretation rather than increasing unity. So, whatever the reality of a hypothetical lost inerrant ur-text, the reality of what we have to deal with on a day-to-day basis is: there is no such thing as an inerrant text.

I think maybe I should clarify a bit further.

Well, for starters:1- What is sin? Any sin at all? Major sins only? 2- What is repentance?3- What are the commandments?There is certainly room for ambiguity here. Hence, no inerrancy. It is not that the text is or is not-error free as you like to pose the question. It is that there is ambiguity and uncertainty with every text. With human language it cannot be otherwise. (Hence, for example, the Rabbis produced the Mishnah to clarify the Torah, and the Talmud to clarify the Mishnah, with the result that Rabbis are still squabbling in endless pilpul about what the Talmud means.)At any rate, as JW has noted, in the real world, there is no unity of interpretation. There is much less unity now than there was during the early Reformation, and less unity in the Reformation than there was in Medieval Catholicism. As more texts are discovered, more and more differences in the texts appear, and as time progresses, despite the huge advances in linguists, textual criticism, etc, there is increasing disunity of interpretation rather than increasing unity. So, whatever the reality of a hypothetical lost inerrant ur-text, the reality of what we have to deal with on a day-to-day basis is: there is no such thing as an inerrant text.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hi Life--

Already asked and answered, Life (among several undisclosed others). See above. (You are a couple pages in the past, I guess; or, you just didn't like my answer.) I was completely comfortable, in fact, I luxuriated, in relating the answer I previously related in answer to the question you erroneously believe I avoided answering.

I know it's a long thread, but, man. Isn't it time to split this thing?

Best.

cks

I have followed the discussion in entire. Can you please point out where you answered the question with anything other than "I don't think the question is relevant"?

[cksalmon]

Come on! He's posted it twice!

Posted what twice, exactly, mfb? Or, what, thrice?

So how is this inadequate? It nails the issue perfectly as far as I am concerned.

It is inadequate because it is not an answer to the question I asked.

I asked: "Does D&C 1:31-32 contain intrinsic errors?" Dr. Hamblin has not answered this very direct question.

I am at a total loss to see how Dr. Hamblin has "nailed the issue perfectly" when he has, thus far, failed to answer the question directly.

Again, for anyone:

Does D&C 1:31-32 contain intrinsic errors?

Dr. Hamblin hasn't answered that question.

Your "thrice" might be indicative of what one might label "(I-already-know-everything-that-is-true) traditionalism," and you're welcome to it, mfb. I haven't been so richly blessed.

But, perhaps, at this point, I should take comfort in determinism? At least, then, it's not my fault.

Best.

cks

[cksalmon]

Just in case it's not clear.I think maybe I should clarify a bit further.

What an utterly asinine response. Go, Cougars!!?

My opinion is that

even if you were to answer the question I actually asked, I'm convinced

that your answer probably wouldn't be

completely satisfying, at least to me.

And that's not meant to be a personal insult;

Lots of things get written that don't necessarily reflect authorial intent, right?

For instance, I asked you a very specific question, right?

Even if I am constrained to think that you understood the question I asked

I'm not sure that you would be able to

satisfactorily answer it. You might try, to be sure.

But, I'm not sure you would be able to pull it off;

unless you believe that your words have some sort of intrinsic,

truth value; I find the very concept

truly laughable.

Heck, I'm not even sure that language is capable of

evincing your pessimism about language.

And, that's quite an admission on my part.

Dude! Maybe you should stop talking!

You might be bumming the non-lame people out now.

Did I say that your response was asinine?

cks

Just a thought.