Jump to content

The Sermon on the Mount and the LofC


David Bokovoy

Recommended Posts

I understand what you are saying, Mansquatch. Here's how I see it:

God passes judgment. He withdraws His protection which is only justly held in place by the honored covenant. Then the wicked punish each other.

Hosea's description of the Lord uncovering His wayward bride and allowing her to discover her nakedness shows exactly how this operates.

So if we apply this on a small scale, let's say your child does chores for an allowance. He fails to complete his chores and you do not pay him. He cannot buy the toy he was saving up for. Is that your fault? Or did you merely allow him to see his own fault by letting him suffer the natural consequences of his actions?

Depending on your child's level of understanding, you may even threaten to punish him by withholding allowance even though you both know on some level that the allowance was a reward for honoring his obligation.

This makes the "punishment" of the wicked(1) by the other wicked(2) then come from the wicked(2). But the wicked(1) owe no penance to the other wicked(2). The "punishment" comes from God and his "judgments".

Link to post

Your view that God is the creator of evil is the concept of creation ex nihilo and the very point that the Prophet Joseph found so distasteful.

David,

So far, you have steadfastly refused to engage my examples, and persist in imputing to me a view that, frankly, I am mystified as to how you interpret it out of my posts. Perhaps once you have accurately stated my view, you can clarify your precise problems with it?

Edited to add: Actually, it's not just my posts you seem unable to respond to. I think I'll just bow out now.

Link to post

David,

So far, you have steadfastly refused to engage my examples, and persist in imputing to me a view that, frankly, I am mystified as to how you interpret it out of my posts. Perhaps once you have accurately stated my view, you can clarify your precise problems with it?

Edited to add: Actually, it's not just my posts you seem unable to respond to. I think I'll just bow out now.

:P The point is tangential to the topic of this thread, but still, feel free to provide scriptural citations for your examples and I'll happily dissect them in the same way I've done every other attempt to support the view that God makes people poor.

Link to post

:P The point is tangential to the topic of this thread, but still, feel free to provide scriptural citations for your examples and I'll happily dissect them in the same way I've done every other attempt to support the view that God makes people poor.

I am amazed that you can pretend to have done that.

Link to post

This makes the "punishment" of the wicked(1) by the other wicked(2) then come from the wicked(2). But the wicked(1) owe no penance to the other wicked(2). The "punishment" comes from God and his "judgments".

Justice requires that the offended be recompensed and that the offender reap what he's sown. I'm not sure it requires the offended to punish the offender. Especially since the scriptures indicate that the righteous response to an offense is to forgive all men.

So, the way I see it, it's not like a group of "wicked" get together and say "Hey, those people in land X are breaking their covenants with God. Gear up, fellas, we're going in."

It's more like the wicked (1) create circumstances in which they offend, defile, mistreat, or otherwise incite other wicked (2). Wickedness by nature is a state of enmity between men and alienation from the principles of godliness. These combustible elements don't need extra encouragement to make war on each other.

Within a community, our punishment usually comes in the same fashion - from living with people who are exactly like we are. Sadly, there are often righteous people caught in the crossfire - the rain falls on the just and the unjust - but society is usually exactly what we, intentionally or unintentionally, make of it.

Link to post

Justice requires that the offended be recompensed and that the offender reap what he's sown. I'm not sure it requires the offended to punish the offender. Especially since the scriptures indicate that the righteous response to an offense is to forgive all men.

So, the way I see it, it's not like a group of "wicked" get together and say "Hey, those people in land X are breaking their covenants with God. Gear up, fellas, we're going in."

It's more like the wicked (1) create circumstances in which they offend, defile, mistreat, or otherwise incite other wicked (2). Wickedness by nature is a state of enmity between men and alienation from the principles of godliness. These combustible elements don't need extra encouragement to make war on each other.

Within a community, our punishment usually comes in the same fashion - from living with people who are exactly like we are. Sadly, there are often righteous people caught in the crossfire - the rain falls on the just and the unjust - but society is usually exactly what we, intentionally or unintentionally, make of it.

Allow me to clarify my view of what you said by wresting the scriptures to fit:

"But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the wicked force God to leave the wicked(1) alone; and it is by the wicked(2) that the wicked(1) are punished randomly interacted with after God has left them alone, que sera sera."

Link to post

Allow me to clarify my view of what you said by wresting the scriptures to fit:

"But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the wicked force God to leave the wicked(1) alone; and it is by the wicked(2) that the wicked(1) are punished randomly interacted with after God has left them alone, que sera sera."

Interesting reading.

How about not wresting the scriptures?

Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee: know therefore and see that it is an evil thing and bitter, that thou hast forsaken the Lord thy God, and that my fear is not in thee, saith the Lord God of hosts.

Jeremiah 2:19

Quoting these words, Elder James E. Faust said "In large measure, those who are disobedient punish themselves." (Oct 1997 GC)

I don't find that random. I find it perfectly in keeping with the natural order of the universe.

Link to post

Also, who "sendeth" the rain on both the just and unjust? Matt. 5:45

Depends. Is it acid rain? The raining down of bullets?

It's probably time we agree to disagree Mansquatch. We've both explained our positions and should I be ill-informed, I have no doubt the Lord will lead me aright as that is my true desire.

Link to post

Interesting reading.

How about not wresting the scriptures?

Jeremiah 2:19

Quoting these words, Elder James E. Faust said "In large measure, those who are disobedient punish themselves." (Oct 1997 GC)

I don't find that random. I find it perfectly in keeping with the natural order of the universe.

It is not the judgment or justice of those who are disobedient that requires punishment or atonement. In larger measure God punishes those who are disobedient.

I only wrested the scriptures to fit with your interpretation.

Link to post

I am amazed that you can pretend to have done that.

Please review the thread, for I certainly have dissected the verses offered in support of your false claim that God makes people poor.

1. Omni 1:6 = Blessings including prosperity is dependent upon obedience to eternal law

2. Prov. 22:2 = merismus

3. 1 Sam 2:7 = Wrongful KJ emendation

4. Mosiah 12:4-8= No reference whatsover to God making people poor but divine judgment speech, a genre which often invokes symbolic and/or hyperbolic language in order to

Link to post

It is not the judgment or justice of those who are disobedient that requires punishment or atonement. In larger measure God punishes those who are disobedient.

I only wrested the scriptures to fit with your interpretation.

Elder Packer said something similar to President Faust, if you're interested.

Alma bluntly told his wayward son that
Link to post

Please review the thread, for I certainly have dissected the verses offered in support of your false claim that God makes people poor.

1. Omni 1:6 = Blessings including prosperity is dependent upon obedience to eternal law

"...he would not suffer that the words should not be verified, which he spake unto our fathers, saying that: inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall not prosper in the land. " - Is it only the wealthy kind of non-prosperity that the Lord will not suffer that it shall not be verified?

2. Prov. 22:2 = merismus

Not my reference

3. 1 Sam 2:7 = Wrongful KJ emendation

Same as last

4. Mosiah 12:4-8= No reference whatsover to God making people poor but divine judgment speech, a genre which often invokes symbolic and/or hyperbolic language in order to

Link to post

"Plainness" is oftentimes directly dependent upon genre. The two texts you cited are not the same type of genre as either the Sermon on the Mount, or the D&C quotations provided in this thread. The two passages you cited are poetic and poetry, especially biblical, is oftentimes anything but "plain."

Nonetheless, I believe I've provided a plain enough explanation of these passages and the reason they don't support your argument.

Best, --DB

Perhaps the irony was lost on you. Who knows?

The point is, the limited nature of human language unavoidably allows for a range of differing, though each reasonable, interpretations of scripture. This means that you can legitimately interpret in a figurative or qualified way the passage I quoted, and I can also legitimately interpret them literally--just as you may legitimately interpret the Mosiah passages in a literal and unqualified way, and I can legitimately interpret the same as a general rule with certain important exceptions.

In other words, while you are free to reasonably view all the quoted passages in this thread as supporting your particular point of view, I and others are free to reasonably do the same. This leaves little or no effectual room for dogmatism.

To be more brief, your emphatic declarations and sweeping dismissal of other points of view (including arguments in support thereof), simply serve to undermine your meaningfulness within a pluralistic and mutually respectful discussion. One may not reasonably expect to have one's position thoughtfully and respectfully considered when one is unwilling to return the favor.

Perhaps it may be wise to follow the commendable example of MnG, who, while confidently and astutely arguing for her point of view, yet still is able to respectfully allow the reasonableness of positions that differ from her own. Just something to consider.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to post

Perhaps the irony was lost on you. Who knows?

The point is, the limited nature of human language unavoidably allows for a range of differing, though each reasonable, interpretations of scripture. This means that you can legitimately interpret in a figurative or qualified way the passage I quoted, and I can also legitimately interpret them literally--just as you may legitimately interpret the Mosiah passages in a literal and unqualified way, and I can legitimately interpret the same as a general rule with certain important exceptions.

If the issue at hand had been "what does this passage mean to you," then of course there would be no right or wrong answer in terms of proper interpretation. My approach was instead based upon an effort to determine original intent and for this pursuit there most certainly is a right and a wrong answer. It is wrong to interpret an example of merismus as anything other than a reference to "all/every."

Hence, when Genesis 1:1 states that God created the "heaven and earth" the statement means "the entire universe." The fruit that Adam and Eve consume would allow them gain knowledge of "all things." When the Book of Mormon title page declares that the book was written to convince "Jew and Gentile" that Jesus is the Christ, it means the "entire world." If one fails to recognize how this literary device works, then one misinterprets the meaning of the text which is what happened with your reading. If it offends you to point this out, then I apologize.

Perhaps it may be wise to follow the commendable example of MnG, who, while confidently and astutely arguing for her point of view, yet still is able to respectfully allow the reasonableness of positions that differ from her own. Just something to consider.

Thank you for the recommendation.

Link to post
If the issue at hand had been "what does this passage mean to you," then of course there would be no right or wrong answer in terms of proper interpretation. My approach was instead based upon an effort to determine original intent and for this pursuit there most certainly is a right and a wrong answer. It is wrong to interpret an example of merismus as anything other than a reference to "all/every."

While there is a right and wrong interprettion of scripture, from what I understand, the only ones who can authoritatively confirm which interpretation is right or wrong, are necessarily the authors of the respective revelations. Since no one on this thread qualifies, then we each are merely left to share our opinions--scholastically based or otherwise.

As such, this pluralistic discussion, like similar discussions on this board, tends to break down and lose efficacy when one or more parties make unathoritative and dogmatic declaration and unwarrantedly dismiss differing points of view.

Hence, when Genesis 1:1 states that God created the "heaven and earth" the statement means "the entire universe." The fruit that Adam and Eve consume would allow them gain knowledge of "all things." When the Book of Mormon title page declares that the book was written to convince "Jew and Gentile" that Jesus is the Christ, it means the "entire world." If one fails to recognize how this literary device works, then one misinterprets the meaning of the text which is what happened with your reading. If it offends you to point this out, then I apologize.Thank you for the recommendation.

It doesn't offend me when you share your OPINION about certain literary divises that may or may not apply in relation to given passages of scriptures. On the contrary. I value them. What is off-putting, though, is the unwarrantedly dogmatic way in which you express your opinion, and the unwarranted way in which you dissmiss other perfectly reasonable points of view. Such is off-putting to me because it is suggestive of a closed mind (which is anathema to reasoned discussions), and it changes the interaction from one of desired reasoned discussion (presumably with the intent to understand as well as explain) to that of repelling and counterproductive pontifications.

At least that is how it comes across to me--for what it is worth.

This is not to suggest that the points you have made aren't worthy of consideration or that you haven't made a concerted attempt to be polite. They are, and you have. There is much in your writings that is highly commendable. I have learned a lot from you and those who share your opinion, and have even been made more open to them through the interactions, though as yet I respectfully retain my current position.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to post

While there is a right and wrong interprettion of scripture, from what I understand, the only ones who can authoritatively confirm which interpretation is right or wrong, are necessarily the authors of the respective revelations. Since no one on this thread qualifies, then we each are merely left to share our opinions--scholastically based or otherwise.

As such, this pluralistic discussion, like similar discussions on this board, tends to break down and lose efficacy when one or more parties make unathoritative and dogmatic declaration and unwarrantedly dismiss differing points of view.

When I know that a viewpoint is wrong concerning an ancient text, I'm going to state so. If, for example, you quoted line one from A Royal Inscription of Hammurapi for the building of a temple in Borsippa and identified the text as a hymn to the goddess Ishtar which reads:

Link to post

When I know that a viewpoint is wrong concerning an ancient text, I'm going to state so. If, for example, you quoted line one from A Royal Inscription of Hammurapi for the building of a temple in Borsippa and identified the text as a hymn to the goddess Ishtar which reads:

Link to post

Hello wall. Sorry for pounding my head against you. It is just that I thought you worth the chance that maybe you weren't entirely set in stone and perhaps even had at least some opennings to allow more than just your own light to shine through. My mistake. I will now leave you undisturbed in your dogmatic pontifications.

Anyone else up for a reasoned discussion?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Your "reasoned discussion" ignores issues pertaining to textual emendations and ancient poetic nuances (not to mention the "plain" meaning of prose) in order to support your dogmatic/incorrect assumptions. So, no, I'm truly not interested in a discussion along those lines, any more than I would be in witnessing someone insist that dAMAR.UTU was a reference to Ishtar.

Thanks, but, no thanks.

Link to post

In other words, Wade, tell me that you believe God is X and that our relationship to him is Y, or even that you believe that there is no God for reason Z, I'm happy to listen to and show respect for a position that runs contrary to my own. Tell me that AMAR.UTU in Hammurabi's inscription means "Ishtar," and I'm going to be dismissive of your view.

Link to post

David,

I don't know why I didn't think of these verses before but the correlation between spiritual and temporal consecration is made in 2 Corinthians 8 where the saints are being praised for their "liberality" in imparting to the poor. This praise is a catalyst for the following words:

For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

In the next few verses, the atonement is again tied to temporal consecration:

For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.

For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened:

But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:

As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack.

I find the the phrase "I mean not that other men be eased and ye burdened" beautifully compatible with King Benjamin's caveat to those who do not have enough to share "I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give....if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless."

Just a few more thoughts,

MnG

Link to post

Anyone else up for a reasoned discussion?

Hey Wade,

I wouldn't mind discussing with you how God creates poverty. Mosiah 12:4-8 is an example of God telling people that He Himself would cause famine and pestilence. Would you believe that some people dismiss this as God lying?

Maybe we could go to an example of God cursing someone and then they very quickly became a poverty-stricken beggar because of the curse. Remember Korihor? He was stricken dumb and then had to go house to house begging for food. [Alma 30:56, 58] Oh but I am sure that his poverty would have happened without him being stricken dumb. All that God did was to take away his ability to speak and that, clearly, did not lead to his begging. But wait, God only withdraws from the wicked and leaves them to themselves. God would never do anything negative to anyone. I then doubt that He struck Korihor dumb. ( italics = sarcastic)

Or remember the time that God cut off the arms of certain Lamanites. [Alma 17] I am sure they went on to lead prosperous lives and never had trouble getting a job.

Or D&C 24 - Those who receive you not, will be cursed by God. Sounds positive.

D&C 104 - Those who do not keep covenants will be cursed by God and trodden down by whom He will.

Examples go on and on and on......

We should remember that just because we think something is bad that does not make it evil when God does it. Did Nephi commit evil when he slayed Laban? God is not doing evil to people by cursing them and sending famine and poverty. In fact, God's curses are often referred to as being done for our sakes.

(A)We know that "every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God." [Moroni 7:16]

(B)We also know that Alma and Amulek were excited by meeting people who were prepared to hear the gospel through their poverty. Alma viewed their being compelled to be humble as a blessing. How were they compelled to be humble? Through poverty.

©Thus poverty was a blessing from God or rather a cursing for their sake. God creates poverty.

A + B = C

When it comes to Zion, it is clear that God has no intention of having poverty in that society. If anyone in Zion tried to oppress others and create any poverty they would be cast out and/or trodden down by whom He will. In fact, those who oppress others currently find themselves under the same condemnation.

Link to post

David,

I don't know why I didn't think of these verses before but the correlation between spiritual and temporal consecration is made in 2 Corinthians 8 where the saints are being praised for their "liberality" in imparting to the poor. This praise is a catalyst for the following words:

For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

In the next few verses, the atonement is again tied to temporal consecration:

For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.

For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened:

But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:

As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack.

I find the the phrase "I mean not that other men be eased and ye burdened" beautifully compatible with King Benjamin's caveat to those who do not have enough to share "I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give....if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless."

Just a few more thoughts,

MnG

Thank you so much. This is an excellent link with the description of Christ's church and the redistribution of wealth under the direction of the early Apostles described in the book of Acts:

"And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common... Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles

Link to post

"And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common... Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles

Link to post

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...