Offenders for a Word

[Stargazer]

Having never read DCP's book, and in my 45 years of church membership having never seen or heard the phrase "offenders for a word" outside of the cover of his book, I have my doubts as to popularity. But then again, I don't live in Utah and have no use for green jello . In fact, I despise jello in all its forms.

Rob, I don't see why you're making a big issue out of this. Surely there are bigger fish to fry? Have all the other theological disputes gotten stale and you're just trying to throw something else in for variety, or is this obscure phrase out of Isaiah suddenly of greater import than before?

Anyway, in Robinson's "Are Mormons Christians?" he told the story of having given a presentation about the LDS church at his school, only to have a professor kindly explain that he had misled the audience into thinking Mormons were Christians when, "of course", they were not. Robinson said that he knew that the professor held to a rather esoteric definition of "Christian", and knowing that his audience would not be familiar with it, he sought to disabuse the notion from their minds that Mormons did not believe in Christ, which was in fact was what they would understand the professor meant. In a series of questions and answers he elicited from the professor what he meant by "Christian", and thus dispelled the accusation (for such it was) that Mormons aren't Christian.

Given that it is a common usage to use the phrase "not a Christian" as an accusation or more uncharitably, as an insult, I think "offenders for a word" is in fact justified, if not in its literal sense as found in Isaiah, but in a perfectly usable allegorical one. In the same sense, some histrionic might shrilly accuse you of "murder" if you had gone hunting and bagged a pheasant.

I think you're barking up an empty tree.

[Rob Bowman]

Stargazer,

You're doing exactly what I pointed out most of the other participants in this thread have done: trying to deflect the issue. Forget about how "popular" you think it is. (By the way, my opening post was prompted by the use of the expression by Mr. Bukowski on another thread.) Forget about whether it's the most earth-shaking problem ever to face Mormonism (it isn't). It is a legitimate issue, and I'm still waiting for someone to defend the use of this expression in a way that is contrary to its meaning in Scripture.

You're also changing the subject by complaining about evangelicals saying that Mormons "are not Christian." I'm not defending that statement here. You don't even seem to be aware of the position I take on this question about calling Mormons Christians. The issue here is whether the typical LDS use of the expression "offender(s) for a word," however often that use occurs, is in agreement with its meaning in Scripture. I say it is not. If you agree with me on that point, then be so polite as to say so, please.

Having never read DCP's book, and in my 45 years of church membership having never seen or heard the phrase "offenders for a word" outside of the cover of his book, I have my doubts as to popularity. But then again, I don't live in Utah and have no use for green jello . In fact, I despise jello in all its forms.

Rob, I don't see why you're making a big issue out of this. Surely there are bigger fish to fry? Have all the other theological disputes gotten stale and you're just trying to throw something else in for variety, or is this obscure phrase out of Isaiah suddenly of greater import than before?

Anyway, in Robinson's "Are Mormons Christians?" he told the story of having given a presentation about the LDS church at his school, only to have a professor kindly explain that he had misled the audience into thinking Mormons were Christians when, "of course", they were not. Robinson said that he knew that the professor held to a rather esoteric definition of "Christian", and knowing that his audience would not be familiar with it, he sought to disabuse the notion from their minds that Mormons did not believe in Christ, which was in fact was what they would understand the professor meant. In a series of questions and answers he elicited from the professor what he meant by "Christian", and thus dispelled the accusation (for such it was) that Mormons aren't Christian.

Given that it is a common usage to use the phrase "not a Christian" as an accusation or more uncharitably, as an insult, I think "offenders for a word" is in fact justified, if not in its literal sense as found in Isaiah, but in a perfectly usable allegorical one. In the same sense, some histrionic might shrilly accuse you of "murder" if you had gone hunting and bagged a pheasant.

I think you're barking up an empty tree.

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

I point out that Joseph Smith said something, to which you reply:

So what?

Huh? Joseph Smith said.... "So what?"

Run! Hide! Cover your eyes! Maybe the issue will just go away.

[LeSellers]

I point out that Joseph Smith said something, to which you reply:

"So what?"

Huh? Joseph Smith said.... "So what?"

No, I did not claim that Joseph said, "So what." I am wondering why this is so important to you. On any scale, it's trivial, on most, it's a zero.

Run! Hide! Cover your eyes! Maybe the issue will just go away.

What "issue"?

It's an issue only to you.

Lehi

[Stargazer]

Stargazer,

You're doing exactly what I pointed out most of the other participants in this thread have done: trying to deflect the issue. Forget about how "popular" you think it is. (By the way, my opening post was prompted by the use of the expression by Mr. Bukowski on another thread.) Forget about whether it's the most earth-shaking problem ever to face Mormonism (it isn't). It is a legitimate issue, and I'm still waiting for someone to defend the use of this expression in a way that is contrary to its meaning in Scripture.

I am not deflecting it so much as I am rolling my eyes over your making it a big enough issue to pontificate about it here. And I mean "pontificate" in the nicest way possible, Rob.

And I don't think it is a "legitimate" issue. I think it is a quibble over hair-splitting.

You're also changing the subject by complaining about evangelicals saying that Mormons "are not Christian." I'm not defending that statement here. You don't even seem to be aware of the position I take on this question about calling Mormons Christians. The issue here is whether the typical LDS use of the expression "offender(s) for a word," however often that use occurs, is in agreement with its meaning in Scripture. I say it is not. If you agree with me on that point, then be so polite as to say so, please.

For the record, I don't know your position on whether Mormons are entitled to call themselves Christians, and I wasn't trying to change the subject, I was submitting that particular instance of the prof. telling the audience that Mormons aren't Christians as a sample of something that came close to the original meaning of the scriptural "offender for a word". Granted that it wasn't actually in a court of law, but I thought people were allowed to use allegory and poetic license in literature? I thought that you might have caught on to this, given my comparison with the use of the term "murder" in connection with hunting?

Or are you of the school of though that says that one may only use scripture in discourse only to the extent that our use matches literally the meaning of the scripture?

[Stargazer]

Run! Hide! Cover your eyes! Maybe the issue will just go away.

To echo Lehi, WHAT issue?

At most, you can argue that the use of the phrase "offender for a word" is improper word usage and out of context. Much like the supposed rule of English grammar that sentences shouldn't end in prepositions.

e.g. "This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put." -- a locution necessary to avoid ending the sentence with "with".

You are swatting flies with atom bombs. Or trying to, at any rate.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your passion.

[ELF1024]

Oh look, it's a molehill... what's that Rob? No really, it's not the mountain you think it is....

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

and I'm still waiting for someone to defend the use of this expression in a way that is contrary to its meaning in Scripture.

I suspect you will be waiting a long time then.

[Vance]

However, this usage distorts its meaning in Isaiah 29:21. The

[Rob Bowman]

Okay, I get it. None of you has an answer to the problem, so you wish to dismiss its importance.

Henceforth, I expect none of you to start any threads bringing up issues of less than the most monumental, paradigm-shattering importance. That is, if you are going to be consistent.

[LeSellers]

Okay, I get it. None of you has an answer to the problem, so you wish to dismiss its importance.

An alternative explanation is that we're so incredibly dense that none of us understands what the "problem" is, nor that it even exists.

A second alternative, one I suggest you might consider, is that you have failed to make the case that this (whatever it may be) is a problem in the first place.

I further suggest that, as the initiator of the topic, it is your challenge to make us see what it is you are talking about, and why it is an issue we should be concerned about.

You have not met that challenge.

Lehi

[ELF1024]

Okay, I get it. None of you has an answer to the problem, so you wish to dismiss its importance.

Henceforth, I expect none of you to start any threads bringing up issues of less than the most monumental, paradigm-shattering importance. That is, if you are going to be consistent.

I am fairly sure that I have never used the phrase. The fact that someone may have used it in a fashion that you don't agree with, matters very little to me. If it was a commonly used phrase at the time of Joseph Smith, the definition of the time would be relevant than the Isaiah useage. Colloquial English does have a tendancy to change the original meanings as it evolves.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Okay, I get it. None of you has an answer to the problem, so you wish to dismiss its importance.

Henceforth, I expect none of you to start any threads bringing up issues of less than the most monumental, paradigm-shattering importance. That is, if you are going to be consistent.

Wait, we don't think it is a big deal. You think it is and think that we should leave the church over it? I am genuinly confused. Perhaps you can start over and make your case.

I see what you are saying, but I see no reason to hang all of the truthfulness of the church onto the mis-use of a some what obscure quote from Isaiah.

IOW the church is true regrdless if the quotes is used correctly or not.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

Wait, we don't think it is a big deal. You think it is and think that we should leave the church over it? I am genuinly confused.

Where did I say that you should leave the church over this point alone?

Is this the standard to which all my posts will be held--that if the point I made is not sufficiently damaging to the LDS religion in and of itself so as to compel members to abandon that religion then the point is not worth noting?

Do all LDS criticisms of evangelical doctrine rise to this level?

What gives?

[urroner]

urroner,

You wrote:

I dispute the premise: my understanding is that the typical evangelical understanding of that statement is exegetically correct: Christ will not allow the church to die. This interpretation is defended in recent exegetical, academic commentaries (see, for example, R. T. France's recent excellent, massive commentary). I realize that not everyone agrees, but that's an insufficient basis for characterizing the usual evangelical view as a "misuse and abuse."

Sorry about taking so long to respond. I have been up to my ears in work and life's problems.

I believe that Evangelicals do abuse and misuse the scripture "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it

[volgadon]

Ok, LDS tend to use the phrase outside of its original context. Hardly news in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

[Deborah]

Doesn't this thread illustrate how someone can get all discombobulated at the use of a word?

[Pahoran]

Okay, I get it. None of you has an answer to the problem, so you wish to dismiss its importance.

No, you don't get it. The reality is that none of us think this "problem" is particularly important, so we've never bothered working up an argument about it. You've got it exactly backwards. Well, that's the risk you take when you rely on mind-reading.

Is this the standard to which all my posts will be held--that if the point I made is not sufficiently damaging to the LDS religion in and of itself so as to compel members to abandon that religion then the point is not worth noting?

Do all LDS criticisms of evangelical doctrine rise to this level?

I doubt it.

But then, we don't have an industry, cottage or otherwise, devoted to criticising the doctrines of others. There aren't enough Latter-day Saints who are so insecure in their beliefs to create sufficient demand for such a thing.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel Peterson]

The expression

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

At last!

You wrote:

I've never been aware of this as a "popular LDS defensive tactic" or as something that is "usual" among members of the Church.

You're engaging in the same sort of diversionary tactic that several others have tried here. A usage that goes back to Joseph Smith himself is one that ought to be defended when challenged, not simply dismissed as not popular enough to merit discussion. And as I already explained, I didn't say that it is "usual" for Mormons to use the expression, but that when they do, the "usual" sense they give it is the one I critiqued.

You wrote:

I simply used it as the title of a book.

Not so. The opening words of your book (on the inside, in the Introduction) are as follows (http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=58&chapid=545):

The somewhat cryptic title of this work

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

You wrote:

But then, we don't have an industry, cottage or otherwise, devoted to criticising the doctrines of others. There aren't enough Latter-day Saints who are so insecure in their beliefs to create sufficient demand for such a thing.

Still more deflection and diversion from what is really a very simple issue.

No, you don't need to have a separate cottage industry criticizing the doctrines of others; you already have a missionary force of fifty thousand going door to door telling Christians of all denominations that their churches are not true churches but are part of the Great Apostasy.

[volgadon]

Rob, oh please. Your critcisms are usually of a high standard. The "missionary force dedicated to tearing down other religions" is a juvenile argument at best.

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

Really? That isn't exactly what I said, but I don't see what is wrong with pointing out that your missionaries teach everyone to whom they present their missionary lessons that all Christian churches other than their own are not true churches. Do you deny this fact?

Rob, oh please. Your critcisms are usually of a high standard. The "missionary force dedicated to tearing down other religions" is a juvenile argument at best.

[TAO]

Rob, if you read Daniel's statment that contains that, and fit in your definitions, it doesn't read any differently. Here is what I mean.

...upon illegitimate semantic games that truly make innocent people "offenders for a word."

...upon illegitimate semantic games that truly make innocent people "out to be an offender."

...upon illegitimate semantic games that truly make innocent people "accuse[d]... of wrongdoing."

...upon illegitimate semantic games that truly make innocent people "condemn[ed by] a man."

...upon illegitimate semantic games that truly make innocent people "indicted by a word."

...upon illegitimate semantic games that truly make innocent people "out to be guilt."

...upon illegitimate semantic games that truly make innocent people "incriminate[d]... by their words."

...upon illegitimate semantic games that truly make innocent people "convict[ed]... by their false testimony."

In other words, Daniel's statement is fine, other people are making LDS 'offenders for a word' or 'accused of wrongdoing based on words manipulated in semantic games'.

The 'offenders' is referring to who is being accused, not the accuser, I mean.

[Rob Bowman]

TAO,

The accusation that someone plays illegitimate semantic games in order to conclude that Mormons are (fill in the blank) is not the sort of thing Isaiah meant, nor can it be included in what he meant by "offender for a word." You are taking the words of the translations I gave out of context. The "word" is a lying word spoken by wicked people, not a word used by the innocent that the bad people misinterpret or misrepresent. Dan's criticism of semantic games was an accusation that anti-Mormons twist the words that Mormons use to misrepresent Mormonism and make it sound offensive. That doesn't fit what Isaiah says.