The Modern Apostasy - Grab Some Popcorn, Watch The Show

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I don't have anything to add that's not a redundant retread, but I apologize to whoever if any of my remarks came off as patronizing. I tend not to control my sarcastic streak as well as I should. It is an immensely frustrating topic, but I shouldn't use that as an excuse to belittle others' views.

[Log]

I do struggle to see how tu qoque helps your case any. Perhaps you could explain.

I am struggling as well to understand how you understand me to be employing a tu quoque. There was the textual accusation you made against me in the which you claimed I was comparing those who disagreed with me with Satan, to which I responded that I had, explicitly, compared them to the primitive Christians. The subtextual accusation, which you have made in the past, and which I am declining to make textual, is what I was responding to when I asked why you don't rebuke Nibley.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Log

[Log]

I don't have anything to add that's not a redundant retread, but I apologize to whoever if any of my remarks came off as patronizing. I tend not to control my sarcastic streak as well as I should. It is an immensely frustrating topic, but I shouldn't use that as an excuse to belittle others' views.

You're ok. Please don't take this thread as a personal affront. I promise it's not meant to be.

[volgadon]

I am struggling as well to understand how you understand me to be employing a tu quoque. There was the textual accusation you made against me in the which you claimed I was comparing those who disagreed with me with Satan, to which I responded that I had, explicitly, compared them to the primitive Christians. The subtextual accusation, which you have made in the past, is what I was responding to when I asked why you don't rebuke Nibley.

You had compared them to the early Christians, but you also compared both to Satan, using phraeseology found in the Endowment. That is what I was responding to. Looking at your quote, you claim that those who disagree with you on that topic are merely "doing that which has been done in other worlds," providing the ancient Christian encounter with Hellenistic philosophy as an example of that. I hardly need point out that you are using a phrase from the Endowment, a phrase attemtpting to justify Satan's role in causing the Fall of Adam and Eve. Fairly obvious what you were getting at.

And, if the purpose of this thread is merely to congratulate one another on the cleverness and spiritual truths contained in our denatured scriptural accounts rendered consistent with the philosophies of men in our age, may I point out that you are merely doing that which has been done in other worlds - such as when the literalistic primitive Christians confronted the philosophies of their age. We all know which one won that one.

[Log]

[Y]ou claim that those who disagree with you on [transfiguring scripture to conform to the dominant philosophy of the age] are merely "doing that which has been done in other worlds," providing the ancient Christian encounter with Hellenistic philosophy as an example of that.

Yes, yes I do claim that. Do you claim differently?

Fairly obvious what you were getting at.

So, again, how was I employing a tu quoque? That's the part I don't quite get.

And why, again, do you not upbraid Nibley, in whose works phraseology from the endowments are frequently found, as a word search of the Maxwell Institute website can verify abundantly?

Need I remind you that the Maxwell Institute is part of the BYU campus, by invitation of the Church?

Edited April 24, 2012 by Log

[volgadon]

So, again, how was I employing a tu quoque? That's the part I don't quite get.

And why, again, do you not upbraid Nibley, in whose works phraseology from the endowments are frequently found, as a word search of the Maxwell Institute website can verify abundantly?

Need I remind you that the Maxwell Institute is part of the BYU campus, by invitation of the Church?

Sounds a lot like "if Nibely can do it, so can I" which in turn sounds a lot like tu qoque. The point is not that Nibley used Endowment phraeseology, the point is that you are using it to compare those with whom you disagree to Satan. That is what I find rather distasteful.

[why me]

According to the results, those who stayed strong were much more likely to have committed to the idea of baptism at the time of the first lessons. Spending hours and days teaching in depth did not have any long term effect on faithfulness.

We are now living in a different time frame. If people are baptized too early, they have a good chance of falling away because the internet is just a click away. For example, in my area 50 percent of the converts have fallen away within the year. That is quite a lot. Also, when the last convert was ready for baptism, just two days before the missionaries taught him the concept of chastity. That is cutting it down to the wire and in many cases after the baptism, the converts are still getting the discussions. They are not automatically put in gospel essential classes. I think that there is something wrong here.

We need to get that we are now living in different times and we should take care that they at least get several discussions before the request for baptism.

[Log]

Sounds a lot like "if Nibely can do it, so can I" which in turn sounds a lot like tu qoque. The point is not that Nibley used Endowment phraeseology, the point is that you are using it to compare those with whom you disagree to Satan. That is what I find rather distasteful.

It's me asking you what is the principled difference that justifies you holding me to a stricter standard than the Church, or even yourself, holds the Maxwell Institute to? If the answer is none, then yeah, it devolves into an accusation of hypocrisy on your part, but that's not a tu quoque, since I'm not accusing you of likewise referring to the temple.

You can find the comparison as offensive as you care to. The point of comparison was doing things without authorization.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Log

[volgadon]

You can find the comparison as offensive as you care to. The point of comparison was doing things without authorization.

Someohow I don't quite think you meant to say that they are doing correct things but without proper authority.

[Log]

Someohow I don't quite think you meant to say that they are doing correct things but without proper authority.

It doesn't matter whether their actions would have been correct if they had had authorization. The fact is, they did not have authorization. Nibley once said when God wanted Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit he would have provided the way - that is, there was no inherent sin in eating the fruit - their sin (and that of the distributor) was in doing so without authorization.

These are the things, among many others, that hide in the background of my mind, which cannot be fully expressed whenever I write. I have read, for example, all of Nibley (at least, the Collected Works), most of the Farms Review of books, many articles from the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, most (if not all) of the talks published on the FAIR website, and so forth, and remember nearly everything of interest (to me) - so I refer to stuff not in evidence - and I don't necessarily attach the same emotional weight to references or types or allegories as you might.

That, combined with my extremely poor writing skills, lends itself to being misunderstood quite a bit. I yearn for the day when that is no longer the case.

I honestly don't intend to be offensive, even if I intend, at times, to be provocative.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Log

[Benjamin McGuire]

The servants of the Lord likening the scriptures unto us, even repurposing scripture, updating, or revising it, and so forth, or the Spirit of God likening the scriptures unto us in our readings, is the proper authority by which such things are done.

I am not sure, really, what your point is. If all you are saying is that we get proper readings when we read with God, and that we are less likely to when we don't, then I am in agreement. The challenge to this is that, in many ways, reading with God is a personal experience, and even when we read with God, and the Spirit gives us understanding, that understanding can be very different for different people. When we liken the scriptures unto ourselves we will naturally come to a unique readings - and by your suggestion both proper and appropriate readings. There is an inherent danger in accusing others not having authority when their readings disagree with ours. If this is largely based on our understanding (both of the text - with or without our own spiritual guidance, and our own submersion in our culture representing the dominant ideologies and philosophies of the day) then we have gone far beyond our place.

Most of the members of the LDS Church are converts. All of them (including the early LDS leaders) come from a world filled with dominant ideologies and philosophies. When they read, they are influenced by their experience and their knowledge. So how would you determine what is apostasy and what is spirit led likening the scriptures unto oneself?

After all, falsifying the scriptures is but one step removed from falsifying the Brethren, for what are scriptures but the fossilized words of the Brethren, and if the fossilized Brethren can be falsified, why not the current Brethren?

Returning to the Book of Mormon, there is this fascinating exchange between Nephi and his brothers over the vision of the Tree of Life. Nephi wants to know the meaning of the vision. So Nephi goes to God and asks and receives. Later his brothers approach him for the meaning. Nephi asks them if they have gone to God. Their response is that God doesn't speak to them. The rest of the discourse is interesting. After all, despite the vision being the same, Nephi notes that his experience is different from his fathers because in part they are interested in different things. The revelation is in part the experience. And what is relevant for Nephi isn't necessarily relevant for his father. The conclusion seems to me quite obvious. If God doesn't speak to us, then a prophet will have to make do. But that approach is second best. The revelation that really matters in our lives isn't the revelation that comes through a prophet, it is the revelation that we receive ourselves.

Fossilized is a good word for this. The gospel isn't a gospel of the dead. It isn't about the past. It is about the living Word. It is about our present. Scriptures are not an end unto themselves. A prophet received revelation (which was experienced). He has to interpret that experience to put it into words for the rest of us to read. And then we read it. And when we read it, we have to interpret it. All of this interpretation when the real goal of scripture is to bring us to the point when the conversation with God runs in two directions, and we no longer need to rely on a prophet to understand God's will for us.So that we don't have to be Laman and Lemuel, but can instead be Nephi. Perhaps it is not your intent, but you remind me of Joshua the son of Nun, in Numbers 11. When Eldad and Medad began to prophesy in the camp of Israel, they came and complained to Moses that this was happening. And how did Moses respond? (vs. 29):

And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them. And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!

Moses, I think, understood that the objective is not to create walls of authority around the gospel. It is not to create rigid hierarchies of interpretation built into creeds and systemic theologies. Rather it is to make revelation and the presence of God available to all of his children in a personal way.

Ben M.

[cinepro]

The church now is quiet about things that people are beginning to find troubling from the internet. But in the past, there was quite a bit of openness in the Ensign and other church magazines about lds history. Much was discussed: adam/god, multiple accounts of the first vision, Brigham's Journal of Discourses, Joseph Smith's head in the hat, etc. Not much was not discussed.

I think you're overstating the openness of the past.

While I agree that the Ensign used to have much better articles that actually conveyed interesting information about Church history, historical figures, and doctrines, it still had limitations.

And I don't recall Brigham Young's Adam/God teachings ever being addressed. When did that happen?

[mfbukowski]

I found the church precisely because it was the only one which was compatible with "the philosophies of men" I was studying- which consisted primarily of William James, Pragmatism, and associated points of view.

It was incredible to me that such a world view could be actually defined in terms of doctrine and related to a Christian point of view. It was as if I found the Motherlode all in one place.

And then I was blessed with a few incredible spiritual witnesses that God was fully aware of what I found and that this was the path he wanted me to take.

We can talk all we like about the "philosophies of men mingled with scripture" but we cannot escape them. We breathe and eat and swim in the "philosophies of men". Every time we read a scripture, we interpret it in terms of our cultural context. Our cultural context is impossible to avoid. It is what we are.

And somehow I think God has figured this out, since he made us the social, cultural beings we are- and he is. There is a reason we call him our "Father".

[Log]

Most of the members of the LDS Church are converts. All of them (including the early LDS leaders) come from a world filled with dominant ideologies and philosophies. When they read, they are influenced by their experience and their knowledge. So how would you determine what is apostasy and what is spirit led likening the scriptures unto oneself?

Ben, to start off with, I agree with most of your post, even while I think you are still imputing something to me that I don't hold, but I wish to address this particularly. The fact that almost all of us are converts, in varying stages of conversion perhaps, is why I am being very careful to say, explicitly, that differing interpretations is not a prima facie sign of apostasy. I could hardly hold any other position, since my readings have changed over the years as well!

To be clear, I only see the historical process of apostasy as having, as a necessary precursor, the unauthorized falsification / deliteralization of scripture.

The unauthorized falsification of scripture, by itself, is not necessarily a symptom of apostasy.

The revelation that really matters in our lives isn't the revelation that comes through a prophet, it is the revelation that we receive ourselves.

I fully agree.

Moses, I think, understood that the objective is not to create walls of authority around the gospel. It is not to create rigid hierarchies of interpretation built into creeds and systemic theologies. Rather it is to make revelation and the presence of God available to all of his children in a personal way.

I understand that as well. I wish the Lord's people were all prophets. If they were, then they wouldn't be using their private interpretations of scripture as a tool to apply pressure upon the Brethren, as well as other Saints, to accommodate the intellectual, and cultural, mores of the day.

Which is kinda my point. That endeavor is the result of apostasy.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

For there to be a de-literalized interpretation there must be somewhere a perfect, correct, and literal interpretation carved in stone and unchangeable.

Where would we find that? And in which language could it be written?

[Log]

For there to be a de-literalized interpretation there must be somewhere a perfect, correct, and literal interpretation carved in stone and unchangeable.

Where would we find that? And in which language could it be written?

Let me counter your tongue-in-cheek statement by asking what an other-than-literally-resurrected Christ would be like?

Edited April 24, 2012 by Log

[Calm]

Log, is your position that because one (or even many) scripture is essential to be literal to be meaningful, all scriptures must be literally interpreted?

[mfbukowski]

Let me counter your tongue-in-cheek statement by asking what an other-than-literally-resurrected Christ would be like?

I can think of many possibilities, but I am not sure what that discussion would accomplish. Defining something in terms of what it is NOT is kind of a strange road to go down. One would have to list every possibility. For example, a whale is not an amoeba, not an elephant or chicken or--- ad infinitum.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I am just not sure what it would accomplish to go down that road.

Yet suppose someone believes that Jesus was resurrected spiritually- and not physically- which perhaps is the sort of thing you have in mind.

I am assuming you are saying that such a belief just as an example, would be somehow harmful to others? What ARE you saying?

[Scott Lloyd]

I found the church precisely because it was the only one which was compatible with "the philosophies of men" I was studying- which consisted primarily of William James, Pragmatism, and associated points of view.

It was incredible to me that such a world view could be actually defined in terms of doctrine and related to a Christian point of view. It was as if I found the Motherlode all in one place.

And then I was blessed with a few incredible spiritual witnesses that God was fully aware of what I found and that this was the path he wanted me to take.

We can talk all we like about the "philosophies of men mingled with scripture" but we cannot escape them. We breathe and eat and swim in the "philosophies of men". Every time we read a scripture, we interpret it in terms of our cultural context. Our cultural context is impossible to avoid. It is what we are.

And somehow I think God has figured this out, since he made us the social, cultural beings we are- and he is. There is a reason we call him our "Father".

It makes a great deal of difference which philosophies of men are under consideration. To be learned is good, so long as the precepts conform to the revealed word of God.

[mfbukowski]

It makes a great deal of difference which philosophies of men are under consideration. To be learned is good, so long as the precepts conform to the revealed word of God.

That's nice in theory but how would one know if they are or not unless one understood them?

If one misunderstands evolution, does it conform to the "revealed word of God" or not? Does predestination conform to the revealed word of God?

Or Log's favorite- can God know what you are going to do tomorrow and you still be "free to choose"?

Does God's omniscience correspond to the revealed word of God?

The point is, once you start thinking, you are stuck in the "philosophies of men", regardless. They are inescapable.

[mfbukowski]

As I recall, it was Satan who invented the phrase "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture" as if they were two different things.

[Cobalt-70]

The parallel is that some of the Saints, both ancient and modern, engage in the practice of falsifying the scriptures - call it deliteralizing, allegorizing, or spiritualizing, if you like, but the net effect is denying the literality of the scriptures - in response to confrontations with the dominant philosophies of their ages. It was Greek philosophy anciently, and today, it’s scientific naturalism. This process has as its intent the rendering of the scriptures conformant to the reigning philosophy. This conforming process can be done with an eye towards benefiting the Church, or with an eye towards weakening its authority.

I think your concern denies historical reality. The process that led to the Great Apostasy was exactly the opposite as you describe. There was no "golden age of literalism" in the 1st century AD. In fact, there was not even a bible. The New Testament became codified and literalized only during what Mormons regard as the Great Apostasy. Before that time, there was just a large number of circulating stories and a few letters. Some of the stories and letters were of more value than some of the others. Some of them were completely fictional, and some were highly influenced by the ideas of Plato and Gnosticism, and even Zoroastrianism. What the Catholic bishops did in the late Roman Empire was to get rid of the most Greek and Gnostic elements of Christianity.

Simultaneously, an increasingly literal era of scripture interpretation began when Middle Age monks and scholars began poring over the scriptures word-for-word. Why do you think that they burned witches during the Middle Ages? I don't think Jesus or Paul would have burned a witch. Why do you think Christians started teaching that the earth was flat, even though the Greeks knew otherwise?

Edited April 24, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Benjamin McGuire]

If they were, then they wouldn't be using their private interpretations of scripture as a tool to apply pressure upon the Brethren, as well as other Saints, to accommodate the intellectual, and cultural, mores of the day.

I think that in general, I agree with this - although I might shorten it - since I think that independent of the intended outcomes, trying to use interpretations of scripture as an instrument of coercion is wrong.

Ben M.

[Log]

Log, is your position that because one (or even many) scripture is essential to be literal to be meaningful, all scriptures must be literally interpreted?

My personal approach to reading the scriptures is that unless I have a compelling reason to do otherwise, I read the scriptures as literally as possible. The possible compelling reasons that I personally accept are, ranked in this order, personal revelation, logical contradiction, personal experience, and clarifications from the Brethren.

If I come to understand something different from what the Brethren are teaching, say, by personal revelation, I shut the heck up and take my concerns to the duly appointed authorities, if I feel the need - that need hasn't arisen yet.

Do I think anyone who doesn't follow my manner of reading is an apostate? No.

However, I think when it comes to not showing the Brethren the respect owed to messengers of the Lord while on the Lord's errand, there is a problem there, though it could be as simple as immaturity, say the normal pride or arrogance of youth. When it slides into active disrespect, sneering questioning of qualifications or accusations of error, that is more problematic. When the effort begins to win others to their side in opposition to the Brethren, I feel that is serious.

Anyways, I recall Nibley saying something to the effect that he read everything as literally as possible, that way he'd have less he would need to correct in his beliefs later. Seems a good way to go.

Since I'm typing this out on a phone: cobalt-70, feel free to substitute "doctrines" for "scriptures" with reference to the primitive Christians. Same effect, and can source abundantly.

[David T]

Log, do you take genre into consideration? Literally and Historically aren't always the same thing.