Robert F. Smith Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 I just took the Mormons (My teacher's) word for it that she was telling me the truth. Why would she tell a child otherwise than what she truly believed?Ooooh. So now the Palerider comes to town to even the score?! C'mon, tough guy, these things happen. Time to put away childish things. If you had wanted to present a serious analysis, that was certainly possible, but you mustn't blame someone else for your misdirection.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 I'm afraid you've already lost all credibility with me so don't go out of your way to act like you're in earnest now.......Why would I adopt an earnest pose when you are so busy being satirical? Don't get bent just because I haven't bought into your jape-fest.
Palerider Posted June 20, 2013 Author Posted June 20, 2013 For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim. The descendants of Ephraim are not the descendants of Manasseh. Lehi (according to the Book of Mormon) was a descendant of Manasseh, so the Book of Mormon cannot be the stick of Ephraim.Even though I agree that the Book of Mormon is not the stick of Ephraim, it isn't because of the supposed posterity of Manasseh (which would be Lehi and his children if they had truly existed).Ephraim became the defacto head of the Northern kingdoms (including Manasseh) because he recieved the birthright blessing from Abraham. Therefore, all northern kingdom tribes are grouped under the "umbrella" of Ephraim. That would include all of the decendants of Manasseh.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 You don't have faith in fairys -- does that indicate a loss of innocence?Hey, I still believe in Hari Seldon.
tagriffy Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 Even though I agree that the Book of Mormon is not the stick of Ephraim, it isn't because of the supposed posterity of Manasseh (which would be Lehi and his children if they had truly existed).Ephraim became the defacto head of the Northern kingdoms (including Manasseh) because he recieved the birthright blessing from Abraham. Therefore, all northern kingdom tribes are grouped under the "umbrella" of Ephraim. That would include all of the decendants of Manasseh.Actually, the birthright blessing came from Jacob/Israel. See Genesis 48.
Palerider Posted June 20, 2013 Author Posted June 20, 2013 Ooooh. So now the Palerider comes to town to even the score?! C'mon, tough guy, these things happen. Time to put away childish things. If you had wanted to present a serious analysis, that was certainly possible, but you mustn't blame someone else for your misdirection.You keep spouting off with your little balloon, but I haven't heard one word directed at challenging the prospect that the New Testament is indeed the Stick of Joseph.Time to put up or shut up.....
tagriffy Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 Hey, I still believe in Hari Seldon.So did I, but then Asimov wrote Prelude to Foundation.
tagriffy Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 You keep spouting off with your little balloon, but I haven't heard one word directed at challenging the prospect that the New Testament is indeed the Stick of Joseph.Time to put up or shut up.....I'm hoping that's because Bob thinks I'm doing just fine on my own.
Palerider Posted June 20, 2013 Author Posted June 20, 2013 Actually, the birthright blessing came from Jacob/Israel. See Genesis 48.Thanks. I stand corrected.
Palerider Posted June 20, 2013 Author Posted June 20, 2013 Try this then: your "spiritual witness" is valid for you. Mine is for me. The same holds true for everyone, individually. Churches and their established dogmas are for masses, not individuals. We are in this world always separate from every living thing but "God". We only touch with our senses, and that does not include metaphysically, which is how "God" touches us continually. Your HT is right, both interpretations are valid. This is simply because no OT prophet was looking at anything more than Israel. There was no "Bible" for Nephi to go on about, because the word bible is simply a collection into one source of various books. The RCC have their longer one, the Protestants have their increasing number of "new" editions, altered for a plethora of reasons/excuses. Ezekiel was seeing the movement of peoples and their scriptures, or he was high on something, or he was addressing a contemporary audience within a paradigm that we no longer understand or even see. To appeal to the OT Hebrew prophets to justify an exclusive paradigm thousands of years later is surely hubris....That's fine if a person wants to take that approach. I certainly wouldn't say one couldn't. But I would say I'd like to have seen someone tell that to LeGrand Richards, McKonkie, or any of the other "Apostles" who I grew up with. I've heard a few of the "big brains" here go on about how Joseph Fielding Smith, really didn't know what he was talking about, but I doubt than any of them would have stood face to face with him and said it.The culture created and passed down by Joseph and Brigham wouldn't allow for it. Can you imagne openly telling Brigham or other members at the time he preached it, that the Adam-God doctrine was pure bunk?As I've said before, the changes in the church's approach today are being forced by the truth about it's history and doctrines being made more available to the masses, not because the church is "growing" or "maturing"........
Palerider Posted June 20, 2013 Author Posted June 20, 2013 You're welcome.It happens when you get older........
Palerider Posted June 20, 2013 Author Posted June 20, 2013 (edited) Ezekiel had a tendency to be excessively wordy. Compare 1:28, "This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord" (NRSV). Nevertheless, I don't see any reason to see any more here than symbolic allegory. Ezekiel fully explained what he meant.Yes and no. I consider the Mormon reading a bit of midrash. The early Church often tried to find ways to understand what has happening and naturally turned to the Bible. They were likening the Scriptures unto themselves (1 Nephi 19:23). Early Christians did the same basic thing with passages like Isaiah 7:14. As long as more-than-literal readings like this are not confused for the meaning of Scripture, there is no reason why Mormons, or anyone else for that matter, shouldn't continue to read the text at multiple levels.I disagree. The early converts (and justifiably so) demanded some sort of Biblical proof texts that validated the BofM and they were readily provided such by their leadership......Unfortunately (for you guys), in the church I was raised in this (your proposition regarding the proof texts) would not have been an acceptable approach to the scriptures in question. It makes it extremely difficult to accept your argument as valid. Edited June 20, 2013 by Palerider
Palerider Posted June 20, 2013 Author Posted June 20, 2013 I'm hoping that's because Bob thinks I'm doing just fine on my own.I think he's empty......
tagriffy Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 I disagree. The early converts (and justifiably so) demanded some sort of Biblical proof texts that validated the BofM and they were readily provided such by their leadership......Unfortunately (for you guys), in the church I was raised in this (your proposition regarding the proof texts) would not have been an acceptable approach to the scriptures in question. It makes it extremely difficult to accept your argument as valid.Who did the demanding and who did the providing is a bit irrelevant. Either way, you have the early Church searching the Bible to see how their situation fit into it. As I pointed out, the early Christians did the same thing did the same thing with passages like Isaiah 7:14. In both cases, a prophecy was ripped out of its socio-historical context and provided with a new meaning that helped the new movement understand themselves. In both cases, the new meaning proved so successful that they became accepted as the meaning of the passage.I understand the difficulty you have in accepting the argument. I'm not even sure it would be considered an acceptable approach in today's Church; I'm having trouble downloading the 2013 edition so I can't check whether the heading has changed. Then again, I cheerfully admit I'm a heretic when it comes to things Mormon.On the other hand, it wasn't so long ago that a scholar could get into trouble for merely suggesting Isaiah didn't have Jesus in mind when predicting the young woman would bear a son called Immanuel. Nowadays many biblical scholars will openly admit this will retaining Matthew's use of the verse as a sensus plenior, with only fundamentalist wings taking issue with it. There is no reason in principle that the LDS Church couldn't allow the same type of reading today, considering it is always trying to liken the Scriptures unto themselves (1 Ne. 19:23).
tagriffy Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 I think he's empty......I've had conversations with Bob that I hope were mutually beneficial. They've been beneficial to me at least. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 ............................ The culture created and passed down by Joseph and Brigham wouldn't allow for it. Can you imagne openly telling Brigham or other members at the time he preached it, that the Adam-God doctrine was pure bunk?Say it ain't so, Palerider. Cause I thought that Orson did just that . . .
Palerider Posted June 20, 2013 Author Posted June 20, 2013 as in kenotic?Say.....vacuous...? Bankrupt....?Not appropriate.
Palerider Posted June 20, 2013 Author Posted June 20, 2013 Who did the demanding and who did the providing is a bit irrelevant. Either way, you have the early Church searching the Bible to see how their situation fit into it. As I pointed out, the early Christians did the same thing did the same thing with passages like Isaiah 7:14. In both cases, a prophecy was ripped out of its socio-historical context and provided with a new meaning that helped the new movement understand themselves. In both cases, the new meaning proved so successful that they became accepted as the meaning of the passage.I understand the difficulty you have in accepting the argument. I'm not even sure it would be considered an acceptable approach in today's Church; I'm having trouble downloading the 2013 edition so I can't check whether the heading has changed. Then again, I cheerfully admit I'm a heretic when it comes to things Mormon.On the other hand, it wasn't so long ago that a scholar could get into trouble for merely suggesting Isaiah didn't have Jesus in mind when predicting the young woman would bear a son called Immanuel. Nowadays many biblical scholars will openly admit this will retaining Matthew's use of the verse as a sensus plenior, with only fundamentalist wings taking issue with it. There is no reason in principle that the LDS Church couldn't allow the same type of reading today, considering it is always trying to liken the Scriptures unto themselves (1 Ne. 19:23).Yeah......this is a little too much like that line from Indiana Jones where Indy is asked "What's your plan" and replies, " I don't know, I'm makin' this up as I go....."The scripture from Nephi of course is self-referencing for me and carries no validity. Still, I understand using the scriptures as a guideline for directing our lives but making the prophecies mean what we want or need them to mean at the time, seems a little fabricated by the wrong entities. 1
tagriffy Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 Yeah......this is a little too much like that line from Indiana Jones where Indy is asked "What's your plan" and replies, " I don't know, I'm makin' this up as I go....."The scripture from Nephi of course is self-referencing for me and carries no validity. Still, I understand using the scriptures as a guideline for directing our lives but making the prophecies mean what we want or need them to mean at the time, seems a little fabricated by the wrong entities.Usually, I invoke 1 Nephi 19:23 when making these kinds of arguments with Latter-day Saints. In fact, my original entry into this thread was taken directly from something I wrote in another forum about Ezekiel's two sticks, while merely chaning the wording to reflect the stick of Joseph representing the New Testament. I would use the same basic reasoning for the Mormon use of Isaiah 29:11-12 or how the letter to the Hebrews reinterpreted the Old Testament.I think your judgment involves the fallacy of presentism. It fails to understand that early Christians and Mormons regarded the Bible as the Word of God, in both the whole and in its parts. (Yes, there is that "as translated correctly" bit, but as Barlow pointed out, most Latter-day Saints accepted the Bible more or less as it was except as modified by modern revelation.) Today we have historical-grammatical and historical-critical methodologies that tell us that we need to read the Bible in context (whatever that may mean). They had the Word of God and the Spirit to lead them to all truth (John 16:13). If something seemed to apply, they would have thought it was the Spirit leading them there. Therefore they simply accepted it without regard to what we moderns would say about the context.Again, this is fine and well--as long as we don't confuse it with authorial intent. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 (edited) Even though I agree that the Book of Mormon is not the stick of Ephraim, it isn't because of the supposed posterity of Manasseh (which would be Lehi and his children if they had truly existed). ... [Emphasis mine.] That's the real problem right there, isn't it? Geez, Palerider, you could've saved us all some time! Given that paradigm, the issue of to whom the Ezekiel scripture might be referring vis-à-vis the Book of Mormon is irrelevant! (Or do you simply enjoy [from your perspective] watching the adherents of your former faith chase their tails?! ) Edited June 20, 2013 by Kenngo1969 1
Questing Beast Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 ... I've heard a few of the "big brains" here go on about how Joseph Fielding Smith, really didn't know what he was talking about, but I doubt than any of them would have stood face to face with him and said it.The culture created and passed down by Joseph and Brigham wouldn't allow for it. Can you imagne openly telling Brigham or other members at the time he preached it, that the Adam-God doctrine was pure bunk?As I've said before, the changes in the church's approach today are being forced by the truth about it's history and doctrines being made more available to the masses, not because the church is "growing" or "maturing"........But growing and maturing occurs just like that: compelling forces. And yes, I would stand and look any of them in the eye and assert that my religious paradigm is just as valid as theirs, or even more valid, since I don't discount anybody's personal religion. All genuine efforts to contact "God" are valid, and I don't see "God" ignoring or disallowing any sincere believer. Nor do I see ONE dogmatic exegesis invalidating the rest....
Palerider Posted June 20, 2013 Author Posted June 20, 2013 Usually, I invoke 1 Nephi 19:23 when making these kinds of arguments with Latter-day Saints. In fact, my original entry into this thread was taken directly from something I wrote in another forum about Ezekiel's two sticks, while merely chaning the wording to reflect the stick of Joseph representing the New Testament. I would use the same basic reasoning for the Mormon use of Isaiah 29:11-12 or how the letter to the Hebrews reinterpreted the Old Testament.I think your judgment involves the fallacy of presentism. It fails to understand that early Christians and Mormons regarded the Bible as the Word of God, in both the whole and in its parts. (Yes, there is that "as translated correctly" bit, but as Barlow pointed out, most Latter-day Saints accepted the Bible more or less as it was except as modified by modern revelation.) Today we have historical-grammatical and historical-critical methodologies that tell us that we need to read the Bible in context (whatever that may mean). They had the Word of God and the Spirit to lead them to all truth (John 16:13). If something seemed to apply, they would have thought it was the Spirit leading them there. Therefore they simply accepted it without regard to what we moderns would say about the context.Again, this is fine and well--as long as we don't confuse it with authorial intent.But the LDS perspective is (or was) we have a guy who's having a regular tete-a-tete with Christ himself. A truly "thin-veil" personal priesthood interview with the Savior of the world.It isn't a matter of "historical-grammatical and historical-critical methodologies", it's a matter of "we have the corner on truth" because of our "special guy in the upper room" and so we have definitive answers that you can count on. The answers are what we say they are. "God wills it!" (For those of you who happen to have seen Kingdom of Heaven). It can't be sold on that level to a number of generations and then altered to what the church is drifting towards today without somebody saying, "Wait a minute, this isn't what I signed up for........."
Recommended Posts