Stick Of Joseph......?

[Robert F. Smith]

Say.....vacuous...? Bankrupt....?

Not appropriate.

That's O.K., mod, I've been needling him.

[Robert F. Smith]

tagriffy, on 20 June 2013 - 12:24 AM, said:

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.

You are certainly correct, Tim, in suggesting that the NT interprets or reinterprets the OT in light of immediate experience, and Jesus Himself does this in claiming that all the prophets spoke of Him. Yet, major Jewish scholars now own up to the fact that, at Qumran at least, the Isaianic Suffering Servant was the Messiah to come. Is it possible that the constant tendency in Judaism to interpret Scripture in a pesher-style is not out of line?

It is certainly true that most scholars would see the Immanuel prophecy as pertaining directly to King Hezekiah of Judah. Hezekiah probably thought so as well. Part of the problem with that is the all-or-nothing approach to interpretation. I was constantly told by the evangelicals years ago that multiple interpretations of a given Scripture was out of line, causing me to produce a study which systematically demonstrated that a type could and often did have multiple antitypes. In the Immanuel case, for example, we even have a formula which goes back over a thousand years before Jesus, and long before Hezekiah:

For Isaiah 7:14, we have the Ugaritic tale of Yarikh & Nikkal-Ib 7 hl ǵlmt tld b[n] “Behold, the ˁalmat shall give birth to a child” (CAT 1.24), in which the Moon-god is fathering a child. But what is an ˁalmat? At both I Nephi 11:13-20, and II Nephi 17:14, also one has to ask what is the meaning of the traditional Hebrew ˁalmâ (MT; cf. 1QIs^a Targum ˁwlymtʼ), which was translated by the 3^rd century Jewish scholars (LXX) as parthenos “virgin,” which is rendered in Aramaic (Syp Syr Peshitta) as btwltʼ "virgin"; Matthew 1:23 parthenos “virgin” follows the LXX Greek, which Jewish translators later revised to neanis (AST "girl, maiden") due to their annoyance with Christian usage. But cf. Deut 22:28, where the LXX uses parthenon to translate Heb bětûlâ "virgin"); cf. Lk 1:31,34; Martyrdom & Ascension of Isaiah 11:2. Note also that the ˁalmâ Rebekah (Gen 24:43) is termed a bětûlâ “virgin whom no man has known” (Gen 24:16). The context and intent should be clear from the sensus plenior.

[tagriffy]

Thankyou, I appreciate your honesty. I'd be interested in hearing your story sometime should decide to share it.

Part of the story can be found here.

[Robert F. Smith]

Part of the story can be found here.

Nice story, Tim, and well worth anyone's time to read.

Have you read Adam Miller, ed., An Experiment on the Word: Reading Alma 32 (Salem, OR: Salt Press, 2011)? It is a product of the Mormon Theology Seminar, and, just when you think that you have a handle on a particular passage, the MTS crew comes in and broadens your horizons. I don't know about you, but I like surprises . . .

Bob

Edited June 21, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[tagriffy]

You are certainly correct, Tim, in suggesting that the NT interprets or reinterprets the OT in light of immediate experience, and Jesus Himself does this in claiming that all the prophets spoke of Him. Yet, major Jewish scholars now own up to the fact that, at Qumran at least, the Isaianic Suffering Servant was the Messiah to come. Is it possible that the constant tendency in Judaism to interpret Scripture in a pesher-style is not out of line?

Not at all. I invoke the idea of "likening the Scriptures unto ourselves" as Mormonspeak for exactly those types of readings. Include Jewish modes of interpretation such as persherim(sp?), midrash, haggadah, gematria (666 anyone?). Include the classical fourfold interpretations of allegorical, anagogical, and moral readings in addition to the literal. Nothing in what I said should be interpreted to mean we must restrict ourselves to what the author intended. As ben Bag Bag said, we have to keep turning the Torah (Scripture). It is only when such more-than-literal readings are put forth as the intent that I become concerned. Confusing the two distinct readings gets in the way of taking the original texts on their own terms and ultimately insults the authors.

It is certainly true that most scholars would see the Immanuel prophecy as pertaining directly to King Hezekiah of Judah. Hezekiah probably thought so as well. Part of the problem with that is the all-or-nothing approach to interpretation. I was constantly told by the evangelicals years ago that multiple interpretations of a given Scripture was out of line, causing me to produce a study which systematically demonstrated that a type could and often did have multiple antitypes. In the Immanuel case, for example, we even have a formula which goes back over a thousand years before Jesus, and long before Hezekiah:

For Isaiah 7:14, we have the Ugaritic tale of Yarikh & Nikkal-Ib 7 hl ǵlmt tld b[n] “Behold, the ˁalmat shall give birth to a child” (CAT 1.24), in which the Moon-god is fathering a child. But what is an ˁalmat? At both I Nephi 11:13-20, and II Nephi 17:14, also one has to ask what is the meaning of the traditional Hebrew ˁalmâ (MT; cf. 1QIs^a Targum ˁwlymtʼ), which was translated by the 3^rd century Jewish scholars (LXX) as parthenos “virgin,” which is rendered in Aramaic (Syp Syr Peshitta) as btwltʼ "virgin"; Matthew 1:23 parthenos “virgin” follows the LXX Greek, which Jewish translators later revised to neanis (AST "girl, maiden") due to their annoyance with Christian usage. But cf. Deut 22:28, where the LXX uses parthenon to translate Heb bětûlâ "virgin"); cf. Lk 1:31,34; Martyrdom & Ascension of Isaiah 11:2. Note also that the ˁalmâ Rebekah (Gen 24:43) is termed a bětûlâ “virgin whom no man has known” (Gen 24:16). The context and intent should be clear from the sensus plenior.

You should have consulted with Catholics; they'd have set you straight about the all-or-nothing approach to interpretation.

[mfbukowski]

I've no hidden agenda regarding the BofM. I openly admit (and have in the past) that I think it is a human fabrication with no more "authority" as scripture than the poems of Emily ****enson.....maybe less.

Yet it seems you think the bible has more authority- but have not given us any reasons why such a belief is justified.

Someone came back from the dead - and that is credible because there are "real" place names in the story? You know Jesus died for your sins because Jerusalem exists?

Sorry to bring up the big picture again, but to me the absurdity of your position is just overwhelming

[mfbukowski]

40 years ago you would not have said this if you valued your membership.........

Guess what? The baptismal interview questions have not changed, nor the temple recommend interview questions, to include your views on what would cause a member to be excommunicated

[tagriffy]

Nice story, Tim, and well worth anyone's time to read.

Have you read Adam Miller, ed., An Experiment on the Word: Reading Alma 32 (Salem, OR: Salt Press, 2011)? It is a product of the Mormon Theology Seminar, and, just when you think that you have a handle on a particular passage, the MTS crew comes in and broadens your horizons. I don't know about you, but I like surprises . . .

Bob

Hadn't even heard of the book before. I've added it to the list of things I need to get/replace as I try to rebuild my library. Alma's seed experiment is so pregnant with possibilities that I doubt would ever be able to get a handle on that particular passage. Another story is full of possibilities is Enos 2-18. "I will tell you of the wrestle which I had before God." It starts off with a relatively selfish beginning "my soul hungered" and then he has to go on with struggles as he moves on to pray for his fellow Nephites and then finally for his foes the Lamanites before his "soul did rest." Kind of makes you want to ask whether Enos' struggle was with God or with himself.

[Calm]

Kind of makes you want to ask whether Enos' struggle was with God or with himself.

I would think that anytime one struggles with God, ultimately it is about dealing with one's own issue, not an issue that God has....him being perfect and all.

[tagriffy]

I'm going to open a new thread on Enos before this one gets derailed.

[Robert F. Smith]

Hadn't even heard of the book before. I've added it to the list of things I need to get/replace as I try to rebuild my library. Alma's seed experiment is so pregnant with possibilities that I doubt would ever be able to get a handle on that particular passage. Another story is full of possibilities is Enos 2-18. "I will tell you of the wrestle which I had before God." It starts off with a relatively selfish beginning "my soul hungered" and then he has to go on with struggles as he moves on to pray for his fellow Nephites and then finally for his foes the Lamanites before his "soul did rest." Kind of makes you want to ask whether Enos' struggle was with God or with himself.

Although no one can locate the reference, Hugh Nibley is supposed to have pointed out that the Hebrew word ʼābaq commonly rendered as "wrestle, grapple" (Gen 32:24-32), also can carry the concept of "embrace" An LDS Semitic scholar recently looked up the Hebrew (which only occurs twice in the Bible) and used WordCruncher to find the same root in Judeo-Aramaic meaning "intertwine, cling, embrace." A friend of mine had his interest aroused by the possibility that this has to do with a holy (temple) rite.

However, it seems just as likely that pondering the matter in one's heart might just as relevant.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Not at all. I invoke the idea of "likening the Scriptures unto ourselves" as Mormonspeak for exactly those types of readings. Include Jewish modes of interpretation such as persherim(sp?), midrash, haggadah, gematria (666 anyone?). Include the classical fourfold interpretations of allegorical, anagogical, and moral readings in addition to the literal. Nothing in what I said should be interpreted to mean we must restrict ourselves to what the author intended. As ben Bag Bag said, we have to keep turning the Torah (Scripture). It is only when such more-than-literal readings are put forth as the intent that I become concerned. Confusing the two distinct readings gets in the way of taking the original texts on their own terms and ultimately insults the authors.

You should have consulted with Catholics; they'd have set you straight about the all-or-nothing approach to interpretation.

Thanks for the learned reply. In a roundabout way I was really speaking to Palerider.

[tagriffy]

Thanks for the learned reply. In a roundabout way I was really speaking to Palerider.

Ah. The same way I was giving you a roundabout add-on to our previous discussions when I talked about my story.

[Chronos]

Palerider's personal history needs to be kept out of this thread.

~Chronos

[volgadon]

Although no one can locate the reference, Hugh Nibley is supposed to have pointed out that the Hebrew word ʼābaq commonly rendered as "wrestle, grapple" (Gen 32:24-32), also can carry the concept of "embrace" An LDS Semitic scholar recently looked up the Hebrew (which only occurs twice in the Bible) and used WordCruncher to find the same root in Judeo-Aramaic meaning "intertwine, cling, embrace." A friend of mine had his interest aroused by the possibility that this has to do with a holy (temple) rite.

However, it seems just as likely that pondering the matter in one's heart might just as relevant.

Months ago I had sent you Rashi's interpretation which goes towards supporting your firend and your's interpretation.

[Palerider]

Yes, you do sound a little bit upset, and that is understandable, and it explains a lot about your attitude and general approach to issues raised on this board. However, the constant snarl in your message is probably more of a disappointment with yourself in not quite measuring up to your own expectations when confronted by what you know is wrong. For, more than tithes & offerings, you feel that some of your integrity has been stolen as you knuckled under to group think and to policies which seemed opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

You are not alone in this. It isn't only a Mormon phenomenon, but part of the human condition. All of us make compromises with what our better judgment tells us. Doing what is right and letting the consequence follow can be a tough row to hoe, and going along to get along constantly eats at us.

That you should have adopted the Palerider persona is very fitting under those circumstances. One question though: Do you really mean it?

Search your heart.

[Palerider]

Well, as much as I appreciate Tagriffy and Volgodon's erudite contributions to the thread (indeed, I appreciate most of their contributions to the Board in general) If you're simply going to object to everything else as nonresponsive (or as not up to whatever idiosyncratic definition of "value" you hold), attempting to engage you on the issue still seems like a waste of time and bandwidth ...

I generally greet cynicism with cynicism. It's a fault. Most of the responses have been laced with it and I tend not to respond well to it.

[Palerider]

Yet it seems you think the bible has more authority- but have not given us any reasons why such a belief is justified.

Someone came back from the dead - and that is credible because there are "real" place names in the story? You know Jesus died for your sins because Jerusalem exists?

Sorry to bring up the big picture again, but to me the absurdity of your position is just overwhelming

Using your formula, at least the Bible gets out of the starting gate because at a minimum it has some empirical adequacy. Your attempt to switch the focus away from the BofM and Ezekiel by undermining the Biblical scriptures isn't helping your case. Why can't you address the issue at hand?

[longview]

Earlier in this thread, I believe Palerider mentioned something about "first shall be last and the last shall be first." Lets see if we can apply it to Ezekiel . . .

The first is obviously the House of Israel beginning with Abraham and developing (degrading) to the "Law of Moses" (carnal commandments and schoolmaster for the Hebrews). Then came the birth of Christ and His mission to "fulfil" the law and present the higher law (Beatitudes). The teachings and commandments of Christ and the discourses of the Apostles of the Lamb are recorded in the NT.

At the time of Christ's mission, He took pains to confine His service to the children of Israel which consisted mostly of Judeaens with a very few exceptions (crumbs for the "dogs"). Therefore the NT is also the record of the Jews (Judaeans). Even the Apostles of the Lamb were all Judaeans.

Who were the "last" in this era? Of course it were the Gentiles. After the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, He commissioned His Apostles to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. Peter had his amazing vision that caused him to understand the need for missionary work among non-Jews. We have no scriptures that we know of that were written by Gentiles in the "Old World" since the days of the "primitive church". Therefore the BIBLE (both OT and NT) represents the First Stick.

It is only in the "Last Days" that the Gentiles ("the last") have come up with the Second Stick. The LDS Church is considered a gentile church. Even though Joseph Smith is of the Tribe of Joseph and a pure Ephraimite, he is of European heritage and thus a gentile. The BoM is the Second Witness of Christ and is very important to cutting confusion and misunderstandings resulting from incorrect transmission of Bible scriptures. The BoM was translated by Joseph Smith, a descendant of Ephraim and Joseph of Egypt. The BoM is compiled (abridged) from the records of Lehi and Nephi and their descendents. They came from Manasseh and Joseph of Egypt.

We are now waiting to see the events unfold for the Jews who are to be "last", such as the building of the Temple in Old Jerusalem, expansion of LDS missionary work among the Jews, etc. But at this time the prophecy is fulfilled where both the Bible and the BoM (plus other standard works) are "ONE" in our hands in the present Kingdom of God (the Latter Days).

[Kenngo1969]

This makes no sense at all regarding Ezekiel.........care to try again?

Why doesn't it make sense regarding Ezekiel? For example, the Doctrine and Covenants (a later revelation), although the reference is but a passing one, says this about the scripture in Ezekiel (an earlier revelation):

[Doctrine & Covenants 27:3-5] 3 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, that you shall not purchase wine neither strong drink of your enemies;

4 Wherefore, you shall partake of none except it is made new among you; yea, in this my Father’s kingdom which shall be built up on the earth.

5 Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim . . . [Emphasis mine.]

Edited June 21, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[mfbukowski]

Using your formula, at least the Bible gets out of the starting gate because at a minimum it has some empirical adequacy. Your attempt to switch the focus away from the BofM and Ezekiel by undermining the Biblical scriptures isn't helping your case. Why can't you address the issue at hand?

What you are persistently not getting is that "empirical adequacy" is irrelevant and actually antithetical to religious belief. You can look forever for an "empirically adequate" evidence that Jesus rose from the dead forever and not find it.

Seriously- what are you thinking?

There are people who are called "atheists" who know perfectly well what I am saying. Imagine you making your argument to an atheist!

"You should believe the bible because it has some empirical adequacy"

According to their positivist standards, you can't get more "rational" than atheism. I of course disagree that we should limit ourselves to positivist standards of justification, but that is beyond this thread, unless you really want to get into it.

When you can prove the resurrection to every atheist in the world- with empirical evidence- (ok- I will accept a simple majority! ) THEN you may have something approaching "empirical adequacy

Good luck on that.

I have no interest in the Ezekiel discussion because to me, it is like worrying about where your car keys are when the wings have just fallen off the plane you are flying in. For those who want to discuss car keys, let them do so- I certainly do not want to stand in their way.

There is no such thing as "empirical adequacy" in a non-empirical question. What I am trying to combat is the view that one's faith hangs on or is in some way relevant to empirical questions. There can be, nor will there ever be, adequate understanding of matters of faith as long as this mistaken notion persists.

I had to lose my faith to find it. Maybe everyone does. Hopefully we all will grow up someday.

Edited June 21, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Stone holm]

Did he walk among them on a common level from after his ascencion until now?

Tell me exactly, what is it that has brought people (especially the gentiles) unto Christ since.....oh let's say 75 a.d. until 1800 a.d.? just to keep it interesting.

Hm, well first the Roman Empire, then the Roman Church and the the competition between the Roman Church and the Protestants, then European conquest and subjection of native cultures, then...

[Robert F. Smith]

Palerider's personal history needs to be kept out of this thread.

~Chronos

Sorry, Chronos, but I thought that we had made a clinical breakthrough . . .

[Robert F. Smith]

Months ago I had sent you Rashi's interpretation which goes towards supporting your firend and your's interpretation.

Gee, I'm losing it, Bro. Me and Neil Young been searching for a heart of gold, and we're getting old.

[volgadon]

Gee, I'm losing it, Bro. Me and Neil Young been searching for a heart of gold, and we're getting old.

I don't have that excuse, I'm just forgetful. =) At any rate, I'll send you the information again. You and you-know-who are on to something.