LeSellers Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) I would wager that everyone who has the time to post here has the time to read 7 pages of scripture a day.If you do that, you could read all the standard works in 1 year.If you can do that, you could read all the standard works, cover to cover every year for the rest of your life. Do you think you would know them better if you did?I highly recommend trying- it's not that hard!I've read the entire Bible (less the Song of Solomon) from Genesis to Revelation, several times (four in one year is my record). In both cases (not as pronounced with the Bible, though, due to its odd arrangement), I have seen things I had missed in topical or random reading/study.There's something to be said for just plowing through the books, not worrying too much about a specific message, and letting whatever inspiration comes over you take hold. There's a wholeness to scripture that cannot be seen from a single vantage point, and going "one over the world", i.e., reading them through rapidly gives a perspective that other methods do not impart.In answer to the challenge from our bishop to read the Book of Mormon during the first calendar quarter, I went to bed at 1800 hrs 31 Dec, woke up at 0001 hrs 1 Jan, and read the entire Book of Mormon before 1015 New Year's Day (with an hour off for hygiene). I won't be doing that every month (or every quarter), but there really isn't too much text in the scriptures. That's not to say there isn't much material there, but it's very condensed—densely packed.Lehi Edited January 3, 2012 by LeSellers
The Nehor Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 I've read the entire Bible (less the Song of Solomon) from Genesis to Revelation, several times (four in one year is my record). In both cases (not as pronounced with the Bible, though, due to its odd arrangement), I have seen things I had missed in topical or random reading/study.I question how uninspired the Song of Solomon is. If it is so uninspired why does the D&C quote it so often?Song of Solomon 6:10 Who is she that looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners?D&C 5:14–And to none else will I grant this power, to receive this same testimony among this generation, in this the beginning of the rising up and the coming forth of my church out of the wilderness–clear as the moon, and fair as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners.D&C 105:31–But first let my army become very great, and let it be sanctified before me, that it may become fair as the sun, and clear as the moon, and that her banners may be terrible unto all nations;D&C 109:73–That thy church may come forth out of the wilderness of darkness, and shine forth fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners;I like the book.
Duncan Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 I question how uninspired the Song of Solomon is. If it is so uninspired why does the D&C quote it so often?Song of Solomon 6:10 Who is she that looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners?D&C 5:14–And to none else will I grant this power, to receive this same testimony among this generation, in this the beginning of the rising up and the coming forth of my church out of the wilderness–clear as the moon, and fair as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners.D&C 105:31–But first let my army become very great, and let it be sanctified before me, that it may become fair as the sun, and clear as the moon, and that her banners may be terrible unto all nations;D&C 109:73–That thy church may come forth out of the wilderness of darkness, and shine forth fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners;I like the book. intriguing!
LeSellers Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) I question how uninspired the Song of Solomon is. If it is so uninspired why does the D&C quote it so often?Using the same words and phrases is not necessarily "quot[ing] it".We might wonder why "Solomon" would use such ridiculous verbiage to describe what he considered to be an attractive girl.Song of Solomon 6:10 Who is she that looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners?Doc&Cov 5:14–And to none else will I grant this power, to receive this same testimony among this generation, in this the beginning of the rising up and the coming forth of my church out of the wilderness–clear as the moon, and fair as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners.Doc&Cov 105:31–But first let my army become very great, and let it be sanctified before me, that it may become fair as the sun, and clear as the moon, and that her banners may be terrible unto all nations;Doc&Cov 109:73–That thy church may come forth out of the wilderness of darkness, and shine forth fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners;Okeh, sisters: who wants to be told she's "as terrible as an army with banners"?I believe we have an example of a poet using a common Hebrew turn of phrase that fit the required format, and he went with it. But, as a common phrase, it was he who was quoting, not God, as in the Doctrine and Covenants. I believe that clear/fair as the moon/sun, might apply to many women (I won't specify who, but, "Hi, Jacquie"—if you're reading this). "Solomon" chose it for that purpose. But "terrible as an army with banners" is not language I'd use to describe any woman, no matter how clear or fair she was (or wasn't).Since, as I believe the case to be, the stock wording does not apply in the text, your position is not well supported.I like the book.You're entitled, but I accept Joseph's word (while under the inspiration that gave us the Joseph Smith Translation): "The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings."Why, we wonder, are there two (as I recall) footnotes in SoS, while one footnote-shortened page of Isaiah merits several dozen? No one uses SoS to describe doctrine. The best we get is "many waters cannot quench love", a platitude so banal as to merit expunging it on that basis alone.Lehi Edited January 4, 2012 by LeSellers
The Nehor Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Using the same words and phrases is not necessarily "quot[ing] it".We might wonder why "Solomon" would use such ridiculous verbiage to describe what he considered to be an attractive girl.I've met girls the term would adequately describe.Okeh, sisters: who wants to be told she's "as terrible as an army with banners"?A goddess. Or, to take the metaphor the early Christians did, the bride of Christ i.e. the Church/covenant Israel.I belieeve we have an example of a poet using a common Hebrew turn of phrase that fit the required format, and he went with it. But, as a common phrase, it was he who was quoting, not God, as in the Doctrine and Covenants. I believe that clear/fair as the moon/sun, might apply to many women (I won't specify who, but, "Hi, Jacquie"—if you're reading this). "Solomon" chose it for that purpose. But "terrible as an army with banners" is not language I'd use to describe any woman, no matter how clear or fair she was (or wasn't).Yes, but I'm sure God knew about the Song of Solomon connection and God in the D&C seems to see no need to use Hebrew poetry or turns of phrase unless quoting scripture.You're entitled, but I accept Joseph's word (while under the inspiration that gave us the Joseph Smith Translation: "The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings."I take that to mean that Joseph Smith was saying that Song of Solomon was not revelation. This I agree with. I would say the same thing about Proverbs, most of the Psalms, Esther, and bits and pieces throughout the Bible. Most of them can still be edifying.Why, we wonder, are there two (as I recall) footnotes in SoS, while one footnote-shortened page of Isaiah merits several dozen? No one uses SoS to describe doctrine. The best we get is "many waters cannot quench love", a platitude so banal as to merit expunging it on that basis alone.Because Isaiah is superior scripture to the Song of Solomon. In the same way I would say John is superior to Luke, the visions of Nephi are of more worth then the wars of Captain Moroni, some of Paul's letters are better then others, the books of Kings are a better history then the Chronicles, and Revelation is better then Daniel. In larger terms, the Book of Mormon surpasses the Old Testament in virtually every way and the New Testament in most ways. That does not mean I will start cutting out bits of my scriptures or even chucking the whole Bible.Comparing a woman to a summer's day is an equally banal platitude when taken in isolation but people still read Shakespeare. However we are a very unpoetic generation. The closest surviving art we have is rap music which quickly degenerated from socially relevant to materialist drivel. Reading a book of modern poetry is a chore. We suck at it so I am not surprised our taste for it is equally weak. Luckily music seems to fill the void for most.
volgadon Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Using the same words and phrases is not necessarily "quot[ing] it".We might wonder why "Solomon" would use such ridiculous verbiage to describe what he considered to be an attractive girl.We might, but before we do so we might remember that what is ridiculous to us was not necessarily so to them.Okeh, sisters: who wants to be told she's "as terrible as an army with banners"?Druzhina, the Ukrainian word for "wife," stems from the term for a band of warriors.I believe we have an example of a poet using a common Hebrew turn of phrase that fit the required format, and he went with it. But, as a common phrase, it was he who was quoting, not God, as in the Doctrine and Covenants. I believe that clear/fair as the moon/sun, might apply to many women (I won't specify who, but, "Hi, Jacquie"—if you're reading this). "Solomon" chose it for that purpose. But "terrible as an army with banners" is not language I'd use to describe any woman, no matter how clear or fair she was (or wasn't).It may not be language that you would use, but this isn't about you.The poet is describing the awe he feels when considering his beloved. This is comparable to the terrifying, awesome effect wrought by seeing troops arrayed for war. Love can certainly awaken unsettling feelings.What is more, war is not uncommon imagery in love poems. It certainly isn't foreign to the English language either.John Donne's "Ecstacy" is one such example.As, 'twixt two equal armies, Fate Suspends uncertain victory,Our souls—which to advance their state, Were gone out—hung 'twixt her and me.And whilst our souls negotiate there, We like sepulchral statues lay ;All day, the same our postures were, And we said nothing, all the day.There is also the further association between love and war found in Anat, the goddess of love and war.Since, as I believe the case to be, the stock wording does not apply in the text, your position is not well supported.The phrase doesn't appear frequently enought to merit being termed stock wording.You're entitled, but I accept Joseph's word (while under the inspiration that gave us the Joseph Smith Translation): "The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings."Why, we wonder, are there two (as I recall) footnotes in SoS, while one footnote-shortened page of Isaiah merits several dozen? No one uses SoS to describe doctrine. The best we get is "many waters cannot quench love", a platitude so banal as to merit expunging it on that basis alone.LehiIf that phrase is all you could find, a rereading might be in order. There are plenty of verses in it which can be used to describe doctrine and spiritual experiences. Here are a few."I am my beloved's, and my beloved is mine...""Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm: for love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave: the coals thereof are coals of fire, which hath a most vehement flame.""My beloved spake, and said unto me, Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come away. For, lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone; The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land; The fig tree putteth forth her green figs, and the vines with the tender grape give a good smell. Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away.""O my dove, that art in the clefts of the rock, in the secret places of the stairs, let me see thy countenance, let me hear thy voice; for sweet is thy voice, and thy countenance is comely.""Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, turn, my beloved..."There are many passages of scriptures depicting God's relationship to us as a romantic one. Canticles filled the need for one expressing our sentiments towards God.
The Nehor Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 if you think that's nuts read this talk by Elder William R. Bradfordhttp://lds.org/ensig...g-ones?lang=engThe television in the 70's was "mostly satanic"? I am so going to hell.Wait, I found the offending clip proving TV in the 70s satanic. Objection withdrawn.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5qAvCWnAjo
Duncan Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 The television in the 70's was "mostly satanic"? I am so going to hell.Wait, I found the offending clip proving TV in the 70s satanic. Objection withdrawn.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5qAvCWnAjo
Recommended Posts