Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Soft Tyranny of LDS Bible Chapter Headings


consiglieri

Recommended Posts

I think there's a chance you may be closer than you think in that I agree there are nondoctrinal items in the publications; but such are always noted or prefaced with statements like "in my opinion" or "my belief" or other context. However the fact remains that the Church considers all it's publications to be authoritative doctrine unless otherwise noted. Unless one comes into line with the Church's viewpoint on this, one will always have trouble defining LDS doctrine when speaking to others outside the Church on this subject.

BC,

I respect you a lot. I think I'd enjoy knowing you IRL and love to have you as a member of my HPG. You are remarkably consistent in the way you think and what you advocate. And your system here is fairly logical and efficient. That being said, I wouldn't want to adopt a particular taxonomy simply because of its apologetic or missionary appeal. And I don't believe that the Church's statement describes the system you've laid out. But I don't propose to quibble about it.

Regards

Link to comment
That being said, I wouldn't want to adopt a particular taxonomy simply because of its apologetic or missionary appeal.

I wouldn't either.

And I don't believe that the Church's statement describes the system you've laid out.

I understand where you're comming from. Until the 2007 summarization, it took some work piecing together what the Church actually believes and taught on the subject unless one attended a Teacher Prep course in which case it was spelled out. In real life, I haven't met any LDS who thought differently from what the Church presents like some people do here. But these conversations bring me back to the 1980's when Elder Gene R. Cook addressed our mission and he taught us exactly as I am communicating now. Of course such a talk, being unpublished, would not be authoritative in this context. But the 2007 summarization, which is authoritaive, was pleasantly suprising.

But I don't propose to quibble about it.

Rock on.

I think Mike's article is spot on.

Yeah, the more I think and remember about the later podcast, the more I believe Ash is now just as inline with the Church on the subject as I am.

Link to comment

In a way, it can be pretty ad hoc for each individual. I've written about the problem of who speaks for Mormons here: http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Who-Speaks-for-Mormons.html

The footnotes there cite several of the best discussions on the subject I've read.

I enjoyed your article, LOP.

Mormonism is lived and experienced as much as it is believed.

Religion has to be experiential, IMO, or the "doctrine" really means nothing. Experiencing the truth of something, through the Holy Spirit or by living it, is the only true way of knowing. I have found that endless discussions of doctrine (even from sacred books) are, generally fruitless, partly because everyone experiences God in slightly different ways. Words are just words, until they have been shown, in some way, to be true. That's where I think a lot of other religions, who speak against "feelings" or "heart knowledge" are actually missing the boat.

Link to comment

The reason why I'm sure I'm not is because the Church has been teaching it this same way for decades; long before the 2007 statement which simply summarizes many of the aspects. Such a summary makes my job easier though.

Unless otherwise noted (as is the case with the Bible Dictionary) yes. Can you think of any others which claim the same exceptions? Are there any Church publications that are not part of the cirriculum, missionary tools, or leadership training?

It's exactly what it's saying. When the Church says teach the doctrine and then gives examples of doctrine, what's missing? Have you read Teaching, No Greater Call for example?

Which makes them doctrine. Of course it's a misnomer to separate them as there is nothing else that qualifies as doctrine that Church publications can be compared to. The scriptures are sources of doctrine, but as we found out, they are not self-interpreting.

Incorrect. Another way to approach it is that they are all part of the cirriculum which makes them doctrine.

Contextually, the doctrine would be that they are recipes and poems acceptable for a doctrinal publication.

I don't know of any bishops or stake presidents who disagree with or differ from my take on doctrine. I don't know of any gospel doctrine teachers (one of my areas of responsibility) who understand it differently. I've double-checked with several visiting GA's and regional reps. There's been no change in the Church's stance on doctrine for decades. It's the same as when I was a missionary long ago. It's been expressly stated to me that one of the reasons I was selected for the calling I do have is because I agree with and understand the Church's position on doctrine.

Well, I can think of one Church leader who seems to differ with your view.

3 Ne 11.37-40

37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.

38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little achild, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a bsandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

Link to comment

My sense is that you're reading the Church's statement in reverse.

The newsroom statement is a sadly botched attempt at what could have been a monumental feat: clarifying what Mormon Doctrine is. I can't believe someone didn't proof read it and point out the ambiguity they were presenting.

Specifically, the following paragraph is open to at least 2 interpretations:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four
Link to comment

The reason why I'm sure I'm not is because the Church has been teaching it this same way for decades; long before the 2007 statement which simply summarizes many of the aspects. Such a summary makes my job easier though.

Unless otherwise noted (as is the case with the Bible Dictionary) yes. Can you think of any others which claim the same exceptions? Are there any Church publications that are not part of the cirriculum, missionary tools, or leadership training?

It's exactly what it's saying. When the Church says teach the doctrine and then gives examples of doctrine, what's missing? Have you read Teaching, No Greater Call for example?

Which makes them doctrine. Of course it's a misnomer to separate them as there is nothing else that qualifies as doctrine that Church publications can be compared to. The scriptures are sources of doctrine, but as we found out, they are not self-interpreting.

Incorrect. Another way to approach it is that they are all part of the cirriculum which makes them doctrine.

Contextually, the doctrine would be that they are recipes and poems acceptable for a doctrinal publication.

I don't know of any bishops or stake presidents who disagree with or differ from my take on doctrine. I don't know of any gospel doctrine teachers (one of my areas of responsibility) who understand it differently. I've double-checked with several visiting GA's and regional reps. There's been no change in the Church's stance on doctrine for decades. It's the same as when I was a missionary long ago. It's been expressly stated to me that one of the reasons I was selected for the calling I do have is because I agree with and understand the Church's position on doctrine.

Just so I understand, is Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Mormon which was written as a Melchizedek Priesthood manual Doctrine?

Link to comment

Just so I understand, is Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Mormon which was written as a Melchizedek Priesthood manual Doctrine?

A good question based on a case in point.

My thought was to wonder what it is about the rather pedestrian process of publication that magically transmogrifies something nondoctrinal into doctrine.

I like better the definition of scripture found in the Doctrine and Covenants; that whatever is spoken by the power of the Holy Ghost is scripture.

If scripture is doctrine, and if whatever is spoken by the power of the Holy Ghost is scripture, I don't see how simple publication makes any difference.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Link to comment

Just so I understand, is Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Mormon which was written as a Melchizedek Priesthood manual Doctrine?

So was Barker's The Divine Church in 1954. I think there were lots of others.

Link to comment

A good question based on a case in point.

My thought was to wonder what it is about the rather pedestrian process of publication that magically transmogrifies something nondoctrinal into doctrine.

I like better the definition of scripture found in the Doctrine and Covenants; that whatever is spoken by the power of the Holy Ghost is scripture.

If scripture is doctrine, and if whatever is spoken by the power of the Holy Ghost is scripture, I don't see how simple publication makes any difference.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Simple publication does not, but if it was published under direction of the Holy Ghost it does! The question remains does the coorelation committee do it's work under direction of the Holy Ghost? Do the First Presidency and the Twelve when determining doctrine... which is the heart and soul of what this thread is really about. Are the leaders of the Church directed by the Holy Ghost or not? The truth is we must determine for ourselves what we will believe or disbelieve, if we are in tune with the spirit, all is well... but if not that is where the danger lies.

(2 Nephi 28:31) "Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost."
I for one believe that those coorelated manuals and publications by the Church are inspired by the power of the Holy Ghost, including the "soft Tyranny" of the LDS Bible chapter headings... Do I think they are infallible, no, but neither is your or my opinion, or any Bible scholar no matter how well educated... the question is, is the Holy Ghost infallible? I think so, now the real test is in our determining when the Holy Ghost is speaking... and if we are willing to listen.
Link to comment

I for one believe that those coorelated manuals and publications by the Church are inspired by the power of the Holy Ghost, including the "soft Tyranny" of the LDS Bible chapter headings... Do I think they are infallible, no,

What does 'inspired by the Holy Ghost' mean in this context?

Link to comment

I enjoyed your article, LOP.

Religion has to be experiential, IMO, or the "doctrine" really means nothing. Experiencing the truth of something, through the Holy Spirit or by living it, is the only true way of knowing. I have found that endless discussions of doctrine (even from sacred books) are, generally fruitless, partly because everyone experiences God in slightly different ways. Words are just words, until they have been shown, in some way, to be true. That's where I think a lot of other religions, who speak against "feelings" or "heart knowledge" are actually missing the boat.

Thanks, and I agree.

Great post, Blair!

Can you imagine discussion boards ruled by civil dialogue?

Thanks yo. I can imagine a board like that, but I imagine I wouldn't always be allowed to post there haha.

Link to comment

Today, we started the New Testament in Gospel Doctrine. When a student was asked to read from the JST, the teacher commented that it's like reading how the KJV "should be". Then she corrected herself..."no, how it used to be."

Link to comment

Good for you. I liked Kevin Barney's notes of his lesson: http://bycommonconsent.com/2011/01/01/nt-intro/#more-23160

This was interesting:

Revelation 2:22 reads as follows:

Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

In lieu of

Link to comment

The most recent episode was last week when the teacher was talking about Ezekiel 37:15-20. I have been making a point of laying low in class, but after it was discussed how the stick of Joseph is the Book of Mormon and the stick of Judah is the Bible, one sister asked what on earth other religions could possibly think it means. Nobody raised their hand, so I finally volunteered, saying they think it means the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom will be reunited under one king.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Types and shadows...Often such scriptures have dual meanings.

Link to comment

Three times over as many months, students in our Gospel Doctrine class which I am (thankfully) no longer teaching have used the chapter headings in the LDS Bible as the last word on scriptural interpretation.

One incident had to do with the prophecy in Isaiah 51:11 that Israel would "return, and come with singing unto Zion." The teacher asked what this meant, and a student answered that it referred to the children of Israel returning at the end of the Babylonian captivity.

A different class member said, "Well, I don't claim to be all that smart, but the chapter heading says, In the last days, the Lord will comfort Zion and gather Israel. So this is talking about something that hasn't happened yet and is still in the future."

The most recent episode was last week when the teacher was talking about Ezekiel 37:15-20. I have been making a point of laying low in class, but after it was discussed how the stick of Joseph is the Book of Mormon and the stick of Judah is the Bible, one sister asked what on earth other religions could possibly think it means. Nobody raised their hand, so I finally volunteered, saying they think it means the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom will be reunited under one king.

The teacher then had others read subsequent verses which showed this is the primary meaning intended by Ezekiel.

Even after this was made abundantly clear, a class member raised his hand and said, "The chapter headings were written by the Brethren, and it says, The stick of Judah (the Bible) and the stick of Joseph (the Book of Mormon) will become one in the Lord

Link to comment
It is our responsibility as members of the Church to convivially point out that the chapter headings are just aids to understanding, written by one scholar and not doctrinally binding.

Only when the Church has published to that effect. Otherwise, it is the doctrine of the Church. There really is no such concept as "binding doctrine" as opposed to "nonbinding doctrine" in the Church. It's either doctrine or it's not.

Link to comment

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...