stemelbow Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 Dan,You wrote:My amended statement is easily documented from the LDS posts in this thread and in no sense goes beyond the evidence. Lehi, Pahoran, Stargazer, and Volgadon all expressed such a point of view, and no one contradicted them. But if you can find a few Mormons in this thread who agree that it does matter what Isaiah 29:21 originally meant, I will retract the whole statement.Context suggests the three you mention seemed like they didn't care whether Dan, in particular, had an Isaiah view of this three word phrase in question. It seems like quite a stretch to think they feel the same about any phrases used from the Bible.
Vance Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 All right. I apologize for the generalization. I hereby revise my statement: Most of the Mormons who have participated in this thread don't care whether their understanding of the Bible is accurate.So, because most Mormons who have participated in this thread don't care that a use of Isa 29:21 is SLIGHTLY different from YOUR (supposedly standardized one), that translates to "Most of the Mormons who have participated in this thread don't care whether their understanding of the Bible is accurate"?Where does one verse equal ALL OF THE BIBLE?Only in a bigoted mind, apparently.
Rob Bowman Posted March 30, 2011 Author Posted March 30, 2011 ELF1024,You wrote:You found it to be something "earth shattering" and most of us are still trying to stop yawning.CFR that I found it to be something "earth shattering." I said no such thing. But I did say this:Forget about whether it's the most earth-shaking problem ever to face Mormonism (it isn't).
ELF1024 Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 CFR that I found it to be something "earth shattering." I said no such thing. But I did say this:Well, it was imporant enough to you make a thread for it... and then throw a fit when nobody cared.It may not be earth shattering, but I'd say it's good enough. Why don't you actually start making a case for why it's important instead of stomping your foot.
Rob Bowman Posted March 30, 2011 Author Posted March 30, 2011 stemelbow,Here's my observation. In numerous exchanges with Mormons on this forum and elsewhere, I have frequently had Mormons tell me that it doesn't matter if Joseph Smith or any other LDS teacher understands a biblical text contrary to its meaning in its original context. All sorts of excuses are offered (usually along the lines of "Matthew did it too"), but this is what they very, very often say. So I have lots of personal experience of having such a response thrown at me whenever it appears that the LDS understanding of a particular text is foreign to its original meaning. The evidence is by no means limited to this one instance.Context suggests the three you mention seemed like they didn't care whether Dan, in particular, had an Isaiah view of this three word phrase in question. It seems like quite a stretch to think they feel the same about any phrases used from the Bible.
Rob Bowman Posted March 30, 2011 Author Posted March 30, 2011 ELF1024,You wrote:Well, it was imporant enough to you make a thread for it... and then throw a fit when nobody cared.It may not be earth shattering, but I'd say it's good enough.You just can't admit that what you said was unfair and inaccurate. Indeed, you want to try to deflect the issue of your false statement by blaming me, by inventing another falsehood (that I "threw a fit").Ridiculous.
ELF1024 Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 You just can't admit that what you said was unfair and inaccurate. Indeed, you want to try to deflect the issue of your false statement by blaming me, by inventing another falsehood (that I "threw a fit").Ridiculous.Really, looks like a fit to me... However, my sixteen year old does it better than you.
stemelbow Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 stemelbow,Here's my observation. In numerous exchanges with Mormons on this forum and elsewhere, I have frequently had Mormons tell me that it doesn't matter if Joseph Smith or any other LDS teacher understands a biblical text contrary to its meaning in its original context. All sorts of excuses are offered (usually along the lines of "Matthew did it too"), but this is what they very, very often say. So I have lots of personal experience of having such a response thrown at me whenever it appears that the LDS understanding of a particular text is foreign to its original meaning. The evidence is by no means limited to this one instance.But you did suggest you based it on the three respondents before. So I challenged your stated basis. I think i true, though, that LDS generally won't be concerned if someone takes a phrase out of context and use it suit their objectives. But I don't see that as a bad thing, necessarily either. I suppose the more dynamic, somewhat evolving LDS understanding lends itself to such thinking. Afterall we aren't inerrantists.
Daniel Peterson Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 But you did suggest you based it on the three respondents before. So I challenged your stated basis. I think i true, though, that LDS generally won't be concerned if someone takes a phrase out of context and use it suit their objectives. But I don't see that as a bad thing, necessarily either. I suppose the more dynamic, somewhat evolving LDS understanding lends itself to such thinking. Afterall we aren't inerrantists.And we're not utterly dependent on the Bible.
stemelbow Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 The insinuation that LDS don't care what the Bible means is unfounded on such grounds though. I mean, my goodness, its a three word phrase that can't really carry much significance to any average reader of the Bible anyway.
ELF1024 Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 So, because most Mormons who have participated in this thread don't care that a use of Isa 29:21 is SLIGHTLY different from YOUR (supposedly standardized one), that translates to "Most of the Mormons who have participated in this thread don't care whether their understanding of the Bible is accurate"?Where does one verse equal ALL OF THE BIBLE?Only in a bigoted mind, apparently.As usual, only Rob's intrepretation is correct, the rest of us unwashed heathens can't tell the difference between scripture and heresy.
Rob Bowman Posted March 30, 2011 Author Posted March 30, 2011 Hey, everyone, I think we've said our peace on this issue. I have already stated my desire and intent to move on to other things.I apologize for the offense my comment sparked. I do not retract the substance of the point I made in rather intemperate manner, which is that, whenever a Mormon understanding of the Bible deviates from its meaning in context, many Mormons are very quick to claim that it doesn't matter.
Vance Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 The insinuation that LDS don't care what the Bible means is unfounded on such grounds though. I mean, my goodness, its a three word phrase that can't really carry much significance to any average reader of the Bible anyway.As Charlie Sheen would say, "WINNING"!!!!
Pahoran Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 Hey, everyone, I think we've said our peace on this issue. I have already stated my desire and intent to move on to other things.I apologize for the offense my comment sparked. I do not retract the substance of the point I made in rather intemperate manner, which is that, whenever a Mormon understanding of the Bible deviates from its meaning in context, many Mormons are very quick to claim that it doesn't matter.Perhaps that's because you have yet to produce one of these "gotcha" arguments were the difference of opinion about the passage in question actually does matter.Supposing, for a moment, that we were to capitulate to you on this question. Exactly what would change? What would we believe differently as a result? What would we do differently tomorrow, or next Sunday, or next year?Why should this question of yours matter to anyone in real life?Regards,Pahoran
urroner Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 Hey, everyone, I think we've said our peace on this issue. I have already stated my desire and intent to move on to other things.I apologize for the offense my comment sparked. I do not retract the substance of the point I made in rather intemperate manner, which is that, whenever a Mormon understanding of the Bible deviates from its meaning in context, many Mormons are very quick to claim that it doesn't matter.I, too, want to apologize for the offense that my comment sparked. I, also, do not retract the substance of the point I made in response to Rob's silly accusation. My comment was that whenever an Evangelical's understanding of the Bible deviates from its meaning in context, which is exceedingly often, many Evangelicals are very quick to claim that it's my understanding is mistaken, even when I show them that many mainstream Christian scholars agree with my POV. They say that since I'm a Mormon, God hasn't bless me with the necessary insight to even begin to understand the scriptures. I guess that maybe God didn't bless the mainstream scholars either with the necessary insight.Oh, BTW Rob, the scripture you are claiming that Mormons are pulling out of context isn't really that important to our beliefs, nor, AFAIK, it's not that important to yours either, in fact, I don't think I have ever used that scripture to teach anything ever, not even during my mission, but, as usual, your talent at creating a mountain out of a molehill leaves me in awe. Your argument was specious and vacuous, but other than those two things, I can say, beyond any doubt that I am truly inspired by the silliness of your argument. You need to do this again.Rob, can you say "Losing the Battle...."BTW Rob, did you catch the Sports Illustrated writer who lambasted the Jimmer as being overhyped and a mediocre great player after only watching him play one game in which Jimmer didn't live up to the SI's writer standards. Your argument would have done that SI writer proud.
Mark Beesley Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 Hey, everyone, I think we've said our peace on this issue.This discussion thread has not been particularly peaceful.Oh, you didn't mean peace? How would I know that 3000 years from now when so many layers of dust cover this topic, the participants, their language, etc. etc. etc.IOW, it's ridiculous in the extreme to raise the spectre you did.
Rob Bowman Posted March 31, 2011 Author Posted March 31, 2011 urroner,You wrote:I, too, want to apologize for the offense that my comment sparked. I, also, do not retract the substance of the point I made in response to Rob's silly accusation. My comment was that whenever an Evangelical's understanding of the Bible deviates from its meaning in context, which is exceedingly often, many Evangelicals are very quick to claim that it's my understanding is mistaken, even when I show them that many mainstream Christian scholars agree with my POV. They say that since I'm a Mormon, God hasn't bless me with the necessary insight to even begin to understand the scriptures.You may or may not have noticed, but I never dismiss a Mormon's interpretation on the basis that he's a Mormon or that God hasn't given him the necessary insight. There is nothing productive or helpful about saying something like that. On the other hand, if you point out to me exegetical evidence (not just appeals to mainstream biblical scholastic authority) showing that I have misunderstood a particular biblical text, I will be happy to consider that evidence and to revise my understanding of the text appropriately. And I would hope that you would be willing to do likewise.If I recall correctly, you made this claim regarding the usual evangelical understanding of Matthew 16:18. If you would like to start a new thread on that issue and present your exegetical case, I'd be happy to consider your argument and reply.
David Bokovoy Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 I thought of a good analogy for this thread:Chapter three of my dissertation is about a 100 page analysis of "knowing" in the context of the Eden story. At the beginning of the chapter, before I commence with my analysis, I cite the following quote from Shakespeare (one of my favorites):"Knowledge the wing wherewith we fly to heaven."
Rob Bowman Posted March 31, 2011 Author Posted March 31, 2011 David,It's a great analogy. However, if you had not simply used the quote in the manner you describe, but had claimed that Shakespeare was actually addressing the very point you were making about knowledge in Eden, then there would be a problem with your use of the quote.I thought of a good analogy for this thread:Chapter three of my dissertation is about a 100 page analysis of "knowing" in the context of the Eden story. At the beginning of the chapter, before I commence with my analysis, I cite the following quote from Shakespeare (one of my favorites):"Knowledge the wing wherewith we fly to heaven."
Skylla Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 So, because most Mormons who have participated in this thread don't care that a use of Isa 29:21 is SLIGHTLY different from YOUR (supposedly standardized one), that translates to "Most of the Mormons who have participated in this thread don't care whether their understanding of the Bible is accurate"?Where does one verse equal ALL OF THE BIBLE?Only in a bigoted mind, apparently.Stop the personal attacks. Vance: You're out of this thread. Skylla
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.