Quote

[inquiringmind]

I've come accross words to the effect that God accomodates His language (or the language of His revelations) to the language and understanding of His prophets (or their audience.)

Is that a valid idea?

Is it a quote from JS, or from LDS scripture?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Very valid, from Brother Joseph and LDS scripture both.

For instance, the very first section of the Doctrine and Covenants states:

1:23 That the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers. Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; and inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; and inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent; and inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time. (Emphasis added)

[zerinus]

I've come accross words to the effect that God accomodates His language (or the language of His revelations) to the language and understanding of His prophets (or their audience.)

Is that a valid idea?

Is it a quote from JS, or from LDS scripture?

"Accommodate" isn't exactly the word I would want to use, because it seems to suggest some kind of "compromise". I don't think that is what it means. I think that what the scripture quoted means is that God does not disdain to talk to us in plain language in our vernacular to ensure He is correctly understood. A contrast might help to clarify that. During the Middle Ages all European Christians had to worship in Latin. The Bible was in Latin, church services were in Latin, even prayers were said in Latin! A lot of the people (especially the less educated rural people) didn't understand Latin, and didn't know what was going on; but they had no choice. Latin was the language of "worship". You had to talk to God in Latin otherwise He wouldn't understand you! That is the kind of think that the Lord is talking about in that verse. It does not mean that God is willing to somehow "compromise" His message in order to speak to us in our common language. Nephi expresses the same idea in these words:

2 Nephi 31

:

2 Wherefore, the things which I have written sufficeth me, save it be a few words which I must speak concerning the doctrine of Christ; wherefore, I shall speak unto you plainly, according to the plainness of my prophesying.

3 For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.

In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord has said the same thing:

D&C 133

:

57 And for this cause, that men might be made partakers of the glories which were to be revealed, the Lord sent forth the fulness of his gospel, his everlasting covenant, reasoning in plainness and simplicity;

D&C 1:23 is intended to convey the same message. It doesn't mean that God "accommodates" anything. It means that He will talk to us in the language that we understand.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

He's not accommodating our limited understanding? Doesn't the fact that He's, y'know, God, suggest that He has to compromise and find a way to speak to those of us who're, y'know, not? *grin*

[zerinus]

He's not accommodating our limited understanding? Doesn't the fact that He's, y'know, God, suggest that He has to compromise and find a way to speak to those of us who're, y'know, not? *grin*

God will talk to us according to our capacity to understand, if that is what you mean. I agree. In another place He has said:

D&C 78

:

17 Verily, verily, I say unto you, ye are little children, and ye have not as yet understood how great blessings the Father hath in his own hands and prepared for you;

18 And ye cannot bear all things now; nevertheless, be of good cheer, for I will lead you along. The kingdom is yours and the blessings thereof are yours, and the riches of eternity are yours.

But that does not mean that His message is compromised. The OP seemed to suggest some kind of compromise. That is not the case.

[mfbukowski]

I think God is smart enough to teach us in ways we can understand. I also think he uses metaphors parables and similes to teach us; that is what happens in the temple.

I think that we learn directly from him non-linguistically, and that because scripture is obviously linguistic, there is an inherent problem of interpretation, which must be done by each of us individually to "reconstitute" what it is that God really means.

Edited August 7, 2011 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

I've come accross words to the effect that God accomodates His language (or the language of His revelations) to the language and understanding of His prophets (or their audience.)

Is that a valid idea?

Is it a quote from JS, or from LDS scripture?

In addition to D&C 1:23, we have D&C 50: 11-12: "Let us reason even as a man reasoneth one with another face to face. Now, when a man reasoneth he is understood of man, because he reasoneth as a man; even so will I, the Lord, reason with you that you may understand." Verse 21 adds "...he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth..."

[CV75]

Is that a valid idea?

Yes, God wants us to understand Him by all means at His disposal. This is the primary idea behind sending His Son Jesus Christ to earth, and all other means (scripture, revelation, angels, conscience, etc.) are appendages to that.

[elguanteloko]

A problem with that idea is that if God communicates the message with a given language then there's little room for secondary interpretations and theology is reduced to scriptural exegesis only.

I personally like the official Catholic position in which the scriptures and the tradition are attempts at expressing the divine spiritual deposit.

[mfbukowski]

I personally like the official Catholic position in which the scriptures and the tradition are attempts at expressing the divine spiritual deposit.

Not surprising. It seems you like the view that language some how "expresses" what cannot be experienced. It is a mirror of what cannot be seen or known.

Like Montgomery, you seek the "source" of experiences, a source cannot be experienced at all.

Edited August 7, 2011 by mfbukowski

[elguanteloko]

It seems you like the view that language some how "expresses" what cannot be experienced.

...what cannot be said, you meant, not "what cannot be experienced". It is certainly experienced.

Like Montgomery, you seek the "source" of experiences, a source cannot be experienced at all.

I'm saying nothing of the "source" of the experience at all. The spiritual deposit is, to say it in a way, the experience of pain you refer to when you say the word "pain" or the experience of love referred to when you say the word "love".

Edited August 7, 2011 by elguanteloko

[CV75]

A problem with that idea is that if God communicates the message with a given language then there's little room for secondary interpretations and theology is reduced to scriptural exegesis only.

This is why he uses more than the written text. "Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had received the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the tongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost? Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do." (Nephi 32:2-3). It is also why He uses a broader definition of the word "scripture" (there's another recent thread on this). The tongue of angels transcends the language in which the spirit of the message is expressed, and the scripture (spoken/written/felt) must be received by the power of the Holy Ghost.

[elguanteloko]

This is why he uses more than the written text. "Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had received the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the tongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost? Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do." (Nephi 32:2-3). It is also why He uses a broader definition of the word "scripture" (there's another recent thread on this). The tongue of angels transcends the language in which the spirit of the message is expressed, and the scripture (spoken/written/felt) must be received by the power of the Holy Ghost.

You are not differentiating between language and experience. You try to express in language what you experience but the OP speaks of "language and understanding", not of experience.

[CV75]

You are not differentiating between language and experience. You try to express in language what you experience but the OP speaks of "language and understanding", not of experience.

As I understand it, the "tongue of angels" is a form of spiritual language that is also a form of experience and a form of understanding.

[mfbukowski]

...what cannot be said, you meant, not "what cannot be experienced". It is certainly experienced.

No- you often speak of the "source of an experience", which we can never experience- all we experience is experience. Everything thing we know is already filtered through human senses. That makes all of "reality" experience- no "source" is possible to know.

I'm saying nothing of the "source" of the experience at all. The spiritual deposit is, to say it in a way, the experience of pain you refer to when you say the word "pain" or the experience of love referred to when you say the word "love".

You often speak of the source of experience, and it sure seems you did here as well

I personally like the official Catholic position in which the scriptures and the tradition are attempts at expressing the divine spiritual deposit.

"Scriptures and tradition" EXPRESS some reality - or thing- or whatever it is- which is the "divine deposit"- in other words, some reality which is NOT experience. I haven't seen any "divine deposits" recently.

That's sure the way I read it

[elguanteloko]

As I understand it, the "tongue of angels" is a form of spiritual language that is also a form of experience and a form of understanding.

"Spiritual language", if it is an experience, isn't language. Feelings are not language and experiences are not language. If you think they are, then have at it. As far as I'm concerned, that makes no sense. Language is obviously something you experience, but language isn't an experience. We're probably just using the word differently. I take those verses you quoted to speak of "language" in a more abstract way than what I'm (and the OP) using it.

I find it hard to interpret "the words of Christ" as an experience and not as, you know, the words of Christ.

[elguanteloko]

No- you often speak of the "source of an experience", which we can never experience- all we experience is experience. Everything thing we know is already filtered through human senses. That makes all of "reality" experience- no "source" is possible to know.

whatever. I often speak of "cars" but right now I'm not.

You often speak of the source of experience, and it sure seems you did here as well

well, I didn't.

"Scriptures and tradition" EXPRESS some reality - or thing- or whatever it is- which is the "divine deposit"- in other words, some reality which is NOT experience. I haven't seen any "divine deposits" recently.

I meant that "scriptures and tradition" express some experience(s).

Edited August 8, 2011 by elguanteloko

[mfbukowski]

whatever. I often speak of "cars" but right now I'm not.

well, I didn't.

I meant that "scriptures and tradition" express some experience(s).

And the "source" of the experience of cars?

[elguanteloko]

And the "source" of the experience of cars?

To talk about "experiencing cars" is to talk about descriptions of events. Those events are our brain reacting to visual (let's say) stimuli which correspond to a new brain state.

[Jeff K.]

"Spiritual language", if it is an experience, isn't language. Feelings are not language and experiences are not language. If you think they are, then have at it. As far as I'm concerned, that makes no sense. Language is obviously something you experience, but language isn't an experience. We're probably just using the word differently. I take those verses you quoted to speak of "language" in a more abstract way than what I'm (and the OP) using it.

I find it hard to interpret "the words of Christ" as an experience and not as, you know, the words of Christ.

Any method used to communicate is language.

Christ spoke in parables. Anyone can read the words, but not experience the parables and their deeper significance.

[CV75]

I find it hard to interpret "the words of Christ" as an experience and not as, you know, the words of Christ.

An example of words or language as an experience in and of themselves: “And it came to pass that he went again a little way off and prayed unto the Father; And tongue cannot speak the words which he prayed, neither can be written by man the words which he prayed. And the multitude did hear and do bear record; and their hearts were open and they did understand in their hearts the words which he prayed. Nevertheless, so great and marvelous were the words which he prayed that they cannot be written, neither can they be uttered by man.” (3 Nephi 19:31-34). The language was not processed in order to be experienced, and so it became the conversion experience itself.

[elguanteloko]

An example of words or language as an experience in and of themselves: “And it came to pass that he went again a little way off and prayed unto the Father; And tongue cannot speak the words which he prayed, neither can be written by man the words which he prayed. And the multitude did hear and do bear record; and their hearts were open and they did understand in their hearts the words which he prayed. Nevertheless, so great and marvelous were the words which he prayed that they cannot be written, neither can they be uttered by man.” (3 Nephi 19:31-34). The language was not processed in order to be experienced, and so it became the conversion experience itself.

We'll have to agree to disagree, then, brother. I, once again, simply don't quite take the interpretation you are giving them.

[elguanteloko]

Any method used to communicate is language.

Indeed.. even with yourself!

Christ spoke in parables. Anyone can read the words, but not experience the parables and their deeper significance.

What I was trying to say is that as soon as there is abstraction there is language and then understanding ("significance") can take place. I don't think we can make sense of "significance" without a signifier and a signified. Then, the process of somehow transmitting the meaning without language is completely incoherent.

Edited August 8, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 07 August 2011 - 11:38 PM, said:

Any method used to communicate is language.

Indeed.. even with yourself!

You should experience language sometime, maybe you wouldn't tie yourself up to the point of telling everyone else they don't understand you (hint, its not them )

Edited August 8, 2011 by Jeff K.

[elguanteloko]

You should experience language sometime, maybe you wouldn't tie yourself up to the point of telling everyone else they don't understand you (hint, its not them )

But I agree that we 'experience language' but that doesn't mean language is an experience.