Thinking Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 I can’t count how many times I have heard the Bible & Book of Mormon straight-line analogy given by Tad R. Callister during the Sunday Morning session. It sounds nice, but there are some problems with it.1. He classifies the Bible as a single witness of Jesus Christ and compares it to a single geometric point. Yet the Bible is a collection of writings and testimonies by multiple people, hardly a single witness.2. If the Book of Mormon and the Bible create one straight line so there is just “one Lord, one faith, and one baptism” how do we explain the groups who have broken away from the main LDS Church, yet still believe in the Book of Mormon and the Bible? M. Russell Ballard even references these groups during his talk in the same session.Could it be possible that there are multiple interpretations of the doctrine contained in the Bible because humans are imperfect beings, not because the doctrine needs to be clarified?
Cobalt-70 Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 Yes, I agree. Like all analogies, this one isn't perfect. This one also seems a bit arbitrary. Maybe you could also say that the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the D&C are the minimum three points required to specify a plane within a three dimensional Cartesian space. Maybe all four Standard Works are the minimum four points required to specify a particular three dimensional space within a four dimensional hyperspace? 1
Franktalk Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 This a perfect analogy. The Bible is a single point because it is a message of God. A single message of the plan of salvation. The many men who wrote what the Spirit of God told them to write were tools of God. When you look at the Bible with spiritual eyes it does become one message. When I read the Bible I interpreted the message such that when I read the book of Mormon and D and C I saw no new doctrine. I had already formed the same doctrine from the Bible. I am not sure how many see it that way. But it does seem that Tad Callister sees it that way. If you see the Bible as stories written by men then you have missed the message. You must read the Bible and BoM with spiritual eyes and a spiritual mind. John 3:3-7King James Version (KJV) 3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.and1 Cor 29But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.If you do not read with the spirit you will not see the things of the Spirit of God. You must love God before you can read with spiritual eyes. The most important commandment is the key. You must love God. Then you will receive the Spirit of God. That Spirit will teach your spirit how to discern. Without the power of discernment the Bible is just words on a page. Oh you may see that God inspired them but without spiritual eyes most of the meat and most of the milk is hidden. 2 Kings 6:17King James Version (KJV) 17And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.The young man could not see until he was given spiritual eyes. The Bible message is hidden until you receive spiritual eyes.
Flyonthewall Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 I can’t count how many times I have heard the Bible & Book of Mormon straight-line analogy given by Tad R. Callister during the Sunday Morning session. It sounds nice, but there are some problems with it.1. He classifies the Bible as a single witness of Jesus Christ and compares it to a single geometric point. Yet the Bible is a collection of writings and testimonies by multiple people, hardly a single witness.The same could be said about the Book of Mormon...it is a record that includes the writings of many different authors. However it is still a record of from one place...the Americas. The Bible is also a record from one place. Now sure you could argue that these are multiple records from multiple sources, but then you lose sight of the point being made. If you are deliberately trying to miss the point, well then, I guess it won't make sense2. If the Book of Mormon and the Bible create one straight line so there is just “one Lord, one faith, and one baptism” how do we explain the groups who have broken away from the main LDS Church, yet still believe in the Book of Mormon and the Bible? M. Russell Ballard even references these groups during his talk in the same session.Could it be possible that there are multiple interpretations of the doctrine contained in the Bible because humans are imperfect beings, not because the doctrine needs to be clarified?The Bible can be translated in many different ways because the language used isn't precise. A lot of times it is poetic or metaphoric, which can be understood in many ways depending upon the individual. The important part is the way it was meant by the speaker.I can say a simple statement like: He received protection from God.Now did I mean He was protected from God? or God protected him?One sentance with two opposite meanings.Even when language is not poetic or metaphoric, people can pull different meanings from the words.Now when you cross language and cultural lines, things can be even more confusing.
The Nehor Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 I thought his powerpoint or whatever was silly. The dots were so big that you could put tons of different lines through them. 1
David T Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 Tad R. Callister apparently thinks that because they study and revere the Book of Mormon as scripture, both the Community of Christ and the FLDS must therefore hold the same doctrines that "we" do. It's a straight line, right? 1
David T Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 On another note, I like the idea of concentric circles better, rather than lines.The Bible is a big circle. Within that, the BoM. Within that, the D&C. There's still comfortable wiggle room in the circle. It's just smaller.
OUmd Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 2. If the Book of Mormon and the Bible create one straight line so there is just “one Lord, one faith, and one baptism” how do we explain the groups who have broken away from the main LDS Church, yet still believe in the Book of Mormon and the Bible? M. Russell Ballard even references these groups during his talk in the same session.You can't. Without ignoring them.
wenglund Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 I can’t count how many times I have heard the Bible & Book of Mormon straight-line analogy given by Tad R. Callister during the Sunday Morning session. It sounds nice, but there are some problems with it.1. He classifies the Bible as a single witness of Jesus Christ and compares it to a single geometric point. Yet the Bible is a collection of writings and testimonies by multiple people, hardly a single witness.2. If the Book of Mormon and the Bible create one straight line so there is just “one Lord, one faith, and one baptism” how do we explain the groups who have broken away from the main LDS Church, yet still believe in the Book of Mormon and the Bible? M. Russell Ballard even references these groups during his talk in the same session.Could it be possible that there are multiple interpretations of the doctrine contained in the Bible because humans are imperfect beings, not because the doctrine needs to be clarified?There is no nit so small it can't be picked, nor simply beautiful point that can't be marred. .Thanks, -Wade Englund- 1
cinepro Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 I used to really like the "two points" analogy. Then I got a quad. 2
mapman Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 It probably wasn't the best analogy, but I think his point was still valid. The Book of Mormon clarifies a lot of doctrines in the Bible and makes it so that there are less interpretations available for Mormons (though obviously there's still a lot of wiggle room for a lot of things).
The Nehor Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 It probably wasn't the best analogy, but I think his point was still valid. The Book of Mormon clarifies a lot of doctrines in the Bible and makes it so that there are less interpretations available for Mormons (though obviously there's still a lot of wiggle room for a lot of things).The point is valid but the analogy didn't help. I didn't like a lot of his reasoning in that talk.
David T Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 (edited) Elder Tad Callister is one of those whose books I've very much enjoyed, but whose subsequent conference talks since becoming a GA have been highly frustrating to listen to. Edited October 4, 2011 by nackhadlow
boblloyd91 Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 I guess I'm in the minority here but I really enjoyed his talk. I especially liked how he pointed out how we can't have middle ground on the BoM, it's either totally true or totally false
David T Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 I guess I'm in the minority here but I really enjoyed his talk. I especially liked how he pointed out how we can't have middle ground on the BoM, it's either totally true or totally falseSee, I think that's a dangerous distinction, especially when 'True' isn't defined. I can believe the Book of Mormon to be an inspired translation of an ancient record, and still believe that the writers played with history and chronology a bit in order to make their hindsight-inspired points and perspectives clearer. There are conversations recorded that I do not believe happened exactly the way they were recorded, if they even occurred at all.The talk was reinforcing the principle of Absolutism, which I do not think represents how things always actually are. Absolutism, when set up as the only option, is the direct cause of many losing their testimonies. 3
Cobalt-70 Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 I guess I'm in the minority here but I really enjoyed his talk. I especially liked how he pointed out how we can't have middle ground on the BoM, it's either totally true or totally falseIf by "true" you mean that every sentence is a true statement, then the Book of Mormon itself says otherwise. It acknowledges its imperfections, and entreats the reader to ignore those imperfections. The Book of Mormon has thousands of sentences. It is quite possible that some of the sentences are true and some of them are false. But of course, that's not what he means. When Mormons say that "the Book of Mormon is true," they mean, in a general sense, that it is scripture.
cinepro Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 Would it be just as valid to say that the Bible is either totally true, or totally false?
The Nehor Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 Would it be just as valid to say that the Bible is either totally true, or totally false?No, because the Bible is divisible into chunks. You're dealing with lots of writers eventually having their works united over a long period. With the Book of Mormon you have an angel delivering it. I suppose it could be possible to suggest that the angel gave us some true and some false bits but at that point you have a very weird idea about angels.
Cobalt-70 Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 No, because the Bible is divisible into chunks. You're dealing with lots of writers eventually having their works united over a long period. With the Book of Mormon you have an angel delivering it. I suppose it could be possible to suggest that the angel gave us some true and some false bits but at that point you have a very weird idea about angels.The angel didn't give the English words of the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith. These words came from a mysterious interaction between Smith's own (inspired) mind and the reflections emanating from a seer stone in the bottom of a stovepipe hat. It's not really that some parts are "true" and some parts are "false." They are all "true" in the sense that the book as a whole reflects (in my opinion) inspired doctrine and the word of God. But some parts of the Book of Mormon have been superseded by Smith's later understanding and teachings, and the stories told within the book are (in my view) inspired, but not necessarily nonfiction.
firepatch36 Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 (edited) 2. If the Book of Mormon and the Bible create one straight line so there is just “one Lord, one faith, and one baptism” how do we explain the groups who have broken away from the main LDS Church, yet still believe in the Book of Mormon and the Bible? M. Russell Ballard even references these groups during his talk in the same session.This is what was going through my mind as he gave this analogy. I also thought of spherical geometry and there could be infinite lines between two points. Edited October 4, 2011 by firepatch36
Flyonthewall Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 A variant on his analogy that I have heard in the 70's & 80's is a board with a single nail can be spun around in a circle, but when a second nail is hammered in, the board is fixed and cannot be moved.
Reinforced-Shelf Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 Like with anything you hear from conference that you may not agree with, you accept the good......and you figure out what to do with the "bad" (I put "bad" in quotes because as this thread shows, one person's bad is another person's doctrine).
The Nehor Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 The angel didn't give the English words of the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith. These words came from a mysterious interaction between Smith's own (inspired) mind and the reflections emanating from a seer stone in the bottom of a stovepipe hat. It's not really that some parts are "true" and some parts are "false." They are all "true" in the sense that the book as a whole reflects (in my opinion) inspired doctrine and the word of God. But some parts of the Book of Mormon have been superseded by Smith's later understanding and teachings, and the stories told within the book are (in my view) inspired, but not necessarily nonfiction.Well the angel who came was one of the writers. I wouldn't be spiritually crushed if a detail or two was wrong in the book; I would be if the stories in the book were found to be fiction. I also believe that if God wanted to give us fictional stories to inspire us He would at least describe them as such. 1
cinepro Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 I suppose it could be possible to suggest that the angel gave us some true and some false bits but at that point you have a very weird idea about angels.Why would that be any different than theorizing a translation process that is both "loose" and "tight"? Why couldn't an angel allow some parts to be "false" in the Book of Mormon, while paying close attention to make sure other parts are "true"?
Recommended Posts