The Problem Of Decontextualizing

[Questing Beast]

Of course it is context. Everything that gets discussed is from context. You cannot discuss anything without it existing in a context. Usually it is a complex context. The distortion comes when the discussion seeks to limit the context to a simple or singular one. Nothing is that simple or singular. Overlap exists in everything. So "context" necessarily brings in other overlapping contexts....

[Kerry A. Shirts]

That is not context, but presupposition.

No its not. It's historic fact.

[USU78]

Of course it is context. Everything that gets discussed is from context. You cannot discuss anything without it existing in a context. Usually it is a complex context. The distortion comes when the discussion seeks to limit the context to a simple or singular one. Nothing is that simple or singular. Overlap exists in everything. So "context" necessarily brings in other overlapping contexts....

What a sad, cynical outlook.

And unscientific.

[Bill Hamblin]

All contexts are "presuppostion". You presume that a context is valid. Others will take exception to your context. For instance, I take exception to the context that scripture, the "holy books", are direct and infallible "word of God". Yet millions of Bible believers uphold that context and interpret scripture with that context....

Nope, you don't get it.

[wenglund]

When I read the scriptures now, my context is: all of the holy books are man-made, and some of the contents under inspiration via our metaphysical connection to "God". That makes all writings of an inspirational nature "scripture". Therefore, books usually contain some or a lot of "scripture", and there is no such thing as a purely scriptural book, no matter how many "authorities" seek to make such by "canonizing" them. Most of the LDS "canonized" scriptures ("the standard works") are not scripture. Sifting the scripture out of the mass of text is an individual matter. But most of the text is not scripture in the "inspired writings" sense. And I have already said what I think of the "historical" aspects: the so-called history in the "holy books" is mostly reworked to present a story that supports the religious world view, which boils down to mankind's relationship to "God". This relationship is necessarily defined by the dogmatic assertions of the holy books. As I do not believe that any of the holy books present a reliable history, i.e. factual history, I don't any longer read them to acquire an education about "what happened". I pass on judging whether or not the characters in the stories even lived or not. I suspect that at least the biblical characters are based on some people who existed and are not created out of whole cloth.

The BoM is a different kind of book altogether. My context cannot make much use of it, because it has no earthly setting, no geographical foundation that can be walked over and dug into. If such a place was positively identified, such that I could go to the ancient ruins of Zarahemla like anyone can visit Jericho, perhaps my thinking of the named characters would undergo a transformation to at least accepting them as based on once-living people.

So, the paradigm, the context, of the holy books is to me one of a metaphysical communication of ideals, morals and eternal truths vis-a-vis human nature and the quest for Joy. Joy is the unbroken, unsullied presence, the companionship, of "God". If the holy books contain anything of value, it must be the transmission of these unchanging ideals that direct the reader toward that relationship.

But any books based on such ideals, verities of human thought and behavior, are as much books of "scripture" as the vaunted holy books are. I believe all that J.R.R. Tolkien has to say about what motivates human beings, and how "God" sees the purpose of the world. At least in broad brush strokes. For greater details on what Tolkien thought about man's relationship to the Divine, reading "Letters" contains more "scripture" than all of Tolkien's literature does....

What, if anything, does this have to do with the problem of decontextualization--i.e. the subject of this thread?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

No its not. It's historic fact.

How does a sweeping, and ironically unscientific, assertion constitute context?

As a personal example, I delivered a paper a couple of weeks ago where I was able to explore some of the contexts in the life, teachings, and experiences of a Jewish prophet exactly contemporary with Joseph Smith without having to delve into claims of historicity.

[Questing Beast]

What, if anything, does this have to do with the problem of decontextualization--i.e. the subject of this thread?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Look above, others have attempted to decontextualize what I wrote, asserting it as mere supposition and cynicism. If you take what I wrote out of the context I define my religious world view by, then of course what I said is supposition and sounds cynical. But if you notice the context, my pov begins to look not only potentially factual but also positive....

Edited March 27, 2013 by Questing Beast

[wenglund]

Look above, others have attempted to decontextualize what I wrote, asserting it as mere supposition and cynicism. If you take what I wrote out of the context I define my religious world view by, then of course what I said is supposition and sounds cynical. But if you notice the context, my pov begins to look not only potentially factual but also positive....

I agree with Bill. You don't get it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Questing Beast]

Oh, I get it. I just injected a tangent, for which I now apologize, since you only wanted to stay rigidly on topic....

[mfbukowski]

For any serious discussion of this topic, I would say that this is required reading for LDS interested in this topic. Brilliant essay!

http://jamesfaulcone...s/Deconstr.docx

Edited March 28, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

Link didn't work.

[cinepro]

Is this quote from Elder Packer related to "context" in this context?

There is no such thing as an accurate, objective history of the Church without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend this work.

There is no such thing as a scholarly, objective study of the office of bishop without consideration of spiritual guidance, of discernment, and of revelation. That is not scholarship. Accordingly, I repeat, there is no such thing as an accurate or objective history of the Church which ignores the Spirit.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Those of us who are extensively engaged in researching the wisdom of man, including those who write and those who teach Church history, are not immune from these dangers. I have walked that road of scholarly research and study and know something of the dangers.

If anything, we are more vulnerable than those in some of the other disciplines. Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a very powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer. President Brigham Young admonished Karl G. Maeser not to teach even the times table without the Spirit of the Lord. How much more essential is that Spirit in the research, the writing, and the teaching of Church history.

If we who research, write, and teach the history of the Church ignore the spiritual on the pretext that the world may not understand it, our work will not be objective. And if, for the same reason, we keep it quite secular, we will produce a history that is not accurate and not scholarly—this, in spite of the extent of research or the nature of the individual statements or the incidents which are included as part of it, and notwithstanding the training or scholarly reputation of the one who writes or teaches it. We would end up with a history with the one most essential ingredient left out.

Those who have the Spirit can recognize very quickly whether something is missing in a written Church history—this in spite of the fact that the author may be a highly trained historian and the reader is not. And, I might add, we have been getting a great deal of experience in this regard in the past few years.

https://si.lds.org/bc/seminary/content/library/talks/ces-symposium-addresses/the-mantle-is-far-far-greater-than-the-intellect_eng.pdf

Or is he talking about something else?

[Bill Hamblin]

For any serious discussion of this topic, I would say that this is required reading for LDS interested in this topic. Brilliant essay!

http://jamesfaulcone...s/Deconstr.docx

Although they both begin with "decon" and may overlap conceptually, decontextualization is not the same as deconstruction.

[Questing Beast]

Is this quote from Elder Packer related to "context" in this context?

Or is he talking about something else?

The now famous "faith promoting history" speech.

I felt the Spirit when reading the books that disabused me of my previous religious perspective. E.g. Todd Compton's "In Sacred Loneliness" was not written without the Spirit and I felt the truth being sought in his chapters on each of Joseph Smith's wives. The writing perspective was completely respectful and inquiring in tone, seeking to explain difficult things to understand.

Boyd K. Packer's injunction to "include the Spirit" is not given elucidation. Thus an "objective" history is impossible to define except on an individual basis. Even deciding if the history you are reading actually includes the Spirit is thus a subjective thing. Packer uses the word "objective" loosely or inaccurately, imho. There is no possible way to teach the history of any religion objectively, especially when asserting spiritual experiences/revelations, etc....

Edited March 29, 2013 by Questing Beast

[mfbukowski]

Although they both begin with "decon" and may overlap conceptually, decontextualization is not the same as deconstruction.

Of course I did not say they were the same, but I would like to hear your description of how they differ.