The Correlation Committee

[Jason]

The Glory of God is Conformity.

Yarf. That's near blasphemous that is.

[BCSpace]

So if one has to alter doctrine to rationalize one's point or pet theory, how creative is it and how intelligent is one really? That's why, when I generate a hypothesis for evolution to swim in for example, I am careful to take the doctrine as defined by the Church into account.

You realize that "intelligence" is a term of art as used in the scriptures, and that "taking the doctrine as defined by the Church into account," stupid people have as much "intelligence" as you?

I don't think many people would consider FLW to have been as "stupid" as everyone else. I will grant you that there are many antiMormons who consider TBM's to be stupid........

[Pahoran]

Fixed it for ya!

Actually I was perfectly happy with it as I wrote it. No fix required, thankyouverymuchallthesame.

Regards,

Pahoran

[frankenstein]

"but as a book of LDS scripture, its meaning is not what the words say, but what the interpretive community of the Saints understand it to mean."

Could you elaborate on this? I honestly do not understand what you mean here?

Also, who do you define to be "the interpretive community of the Saints".

If I would define "the interpretive community of the Saints" as the 1st Presidency and the 12, I outright dismiss scholars for profit or scholars or pets or any other person not ordained to speak for an behalf of the LDS Church as a special witness of Christ.

I have no agenda to my questions, I am just trying to understand your position.

[Pahoran]

"but as a book of LDS scripture, its meaning is not what the words say, but what the interpretive community of the Saints understand it to mean."

Could you elaborate on this? I honestly do not understand what you mean here?

It goes back to my quote from Hilary: "Scripture consists not in what one reads, but in what one understands." Scripture has important functions in a faith community that go beyond minute examinations of the words.

Also, who do you define to be "the interpretive community of the Saints".

All genuine believers. I realise that this raises other questions, such as what happens when two or more members have different interpretations? The short answer to that is that this is part of the process by which faith communities work out among themselves how their scriptures are to be interpreted.

If I would define "the interpretive community of the Saints" as the 1st Presidency and the 12, I outright dismiss scholars for profit or scholars or pets or any other person not ordained to speak for an behalf of the LDS Church as a special witness of Christ.

I have no agenda to my questions, I am just trying to understand your position.

All that I'm saying is this: for the purposes of Matthew's problem, the correlated curriculum may reasonably be held to represent the views of the Church as an interpretive community. The Correlation Committee aren't infallible, of course, but they do have authority, and considerable influence too. Rather than Matthew trying to show that long-held and widely accepted interpretations are wrong, I am simply suggesting that he demonstrate how ancient communities would have interpreted the passage in a way that reflects their needs rather than ours.

Regards,

Pahoran