Mike Ash: After the Manner of Their Language

[Calm]

I am way behind my usual announcements...been lazy.  Several are up, will start a new thread for each for discussion:

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2017/after-the-manner-of-their-language

Quote

 

Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn’t seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other guy whips out his phone and calls the emergency services.  He gasps, “My friend is dead! What can I do?”

The operator says “Calm down. I can help. First, let’s make sure he’s dead.” There is a silence, and then a shot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says, “OK, now what?”

I’m a firm believer that truth is truth regardless of the source. As Joseph Smith said, “One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” While no endeavor in which humans are engaged can be infallible, I find that “science” (as an umbrella term for multiple disciples) typically moves forward in our understanding of the cosmos and how our planet and life evolved to its current state. Scientific discoveries shed increasing light on how we humans fit into this world.

While scientific findings have, at times, contributed to the faltering of testimonies, I personally find that science illuminates belief in positive ways and sheds light on obscure or misunderstood areas of religious understanding

My interest in these and other scientifically-related topics, and how they can be understood from within a framework of belief, compelled me—a couple of years ago—to begin a book-length project addressing this general theme and how Latter-day Saints can embrace, rather than distress over scientific discoveries and their sometimes apparent clash with religious beliefs....

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

I thought that Mike's main point was that everyone has biases/perspectives, and that we therefore recontextualize everything we see, hear, or read according to our own culture.  Any recorder of events will recontextualize them as he writes, and thus just such an ancient recontextualization can be subject to modern recontextualization.

[Physics Guy]

Christians have long been willing to translate their scriptures, to the point where hardly any actual words of Jesus were ever preserved. Nobody seemed to worry that precious nuances of revelation were going to be lost by writing them down in mostly crude common Greek. The particular sounds and grammar of the original message were freely discarded. They were really only part of the message's context, not its content itself.

Could this also go further? Perhaps even seemingly clear scriptural statements about the shape of the planet or its motion (or lack thereof) were really just part of the mental grammar of ancient minds, and should be replaced when we read them today in the same way that we replace ancient Hebrew grammar with English. Perhaps some of Paul's remarks about slaves and women were really just part of his day's mental grammar, and not inspired message content.

If this doesn't stop somewhere, scriptures mean nothing. Distinguishing cultural context from inspired content remains an unavoidable task, though, for any scriptures that have been transmitted by natural human means. Such as, say, the New Testament.

Does it make a difference if the scripture is supposed to have been translated by miracle from golden plates that were bestowed by an angel? I mean, if God went to all the trouble with angels and Urim and Thummim, are we really allowed to relativize the dictated words?

Maybe still. But all this contextual relativization of awkward scriptural passages seems as though it just shouldn't be quite as easy for Mormons, with their more miraculous scriptures, as it is for mainstream Christians or Jews.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Physics Guy

[Atheist Mormon]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I thought that Mike's main point was that everyone has biases/perspectives, and that we therefore recontextualize everything we see, hear, or read according to our own culture.  Any recorder of events will recontextualize them as he writes, and thus just such an ancient recontextualization can be subject to modern recontextualization.

Thanks goodness the litmus test is alot easier than this; It is either here we can see or not here we cannot see..

[blueglass]

A few years ago I ran into David tolman at a Messiah sing at United Methodist.  We had a good talk.   It's time for an update and more robust response to his "three views" paper.  

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Thanks goodness the litmus test is alot easier than this; It is either here we can see or not here we cannot see..

I don't follow.  

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Christians have long been willing to translate their scriptures, to the point where hardly any actual words of Jesus were ever preserved. Nobody seemed to worry that precious nuances of revelation were going to be lost by writing them down in mostly crude common Greek. The particular sounds and grammar of the original message were freely discarded. They were really only part of the message's context, not its content itself.

What makes it even  more distant from us is the fact that Jesus spoke his words in Aramaic, and what we largely get are reminiscences about it in koine Greek many decades later.  However, that is and has been quite normal for all humans in nearly every walk of life since the beginning.  That can be especially tough for someone who depends upon mathematical and solid physical relationships as part of his profession.

Quote

Could this also go further? Perhaps even seemingly clear scriptural statements about the shape of the planet or its motion (or lack thereof) were really just part of the mental grammar of ancient minds, and should be replaced when we read them today in the same way that we replace ancient Hebrew grammar with English. Perhaps some of Paul's remarks about slaves and women were really just part of his day's mental grammar, and not inspired message content.

Paul does tells us from time to time that he is giving us his mere opinion on certain theings -- rather than a commandment from God.  Brigham young taught us this:

Quote

I have heard some make the broad assertion that every word within the lids of the Bible was the word of God. I have said to them, "You have never read the Bible, have you?" "O, yes, and I believe every word in it is the word of God." Well, I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words of bad angels and words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the a s s when he rebuked the prophet in his madness. I believe the words of the Bible are just what they are; but aside from that I believe the doctrines concerning salvation contained in that book are true, and that their observance will elevate any people, nation or family that dwells on the face of the earth. The doctrines contained in the Bible will lift to a superior condition all who observe them; they will impart to them knowledge, wisdom, charity, fill them with compassion and cause them to feel after the wants of those who are in distress, or in painful or degraded circumstances.  Journal of Discourses 13:175 (May 29, 1870)

Quote

If this doesn't stop somewhere, scriptures mean nothing. Distinguishing cultural context from inspired content remains an unavoidable task, though, for any scriptures that have been transmitted by natural human means. Such as, say, the New Testament.

Does it make a difference if the scripture is supposed to have been translated by miracle from golden plates that were bestowed by an angel? I mean, if God went to all the trouble with angels and Urim and Thummim, are we really allowed to relativize the dictated words?

Maybe still. But all this contextual relativization of awkward scriptural passages seems as though it just shouldn't be quite as easy for Mormons, with their more miraculous scriptures, as it is for mainstream Christians or Jews.

Nope, and it isn't supposed to be easy.  We all must still depend upon the best source of understanding any of it -- the Holy Spirit.  It also helps to understand the historical context, but that takes real work and effort, something many of us don't really have time for.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[cinepro]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I thought that Mike's main point was that everyone has biases/perspectives, and that we therefore recontextualize everything we see, hear, or read according to our own culture.  Any recorder of events will recontextualize them as he writes, and thus just such an ancient recontextualization can be subject to modern recontextualization.

It's an interesting idea, but it seems it could lead to some odd places.

For example, what if the idea that Joseph Smith was visited by angels is based on the bias and perspective of his culture?  At some point, how willing are we to accept that things we might consider "objective truth" are a result of these biases?  Is it only a tool to help us maintain belief, or should it also be used to challenge and analyze those beliefs themselves?

[Robert F. Smith]

13 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It's an interesting idea, but it seems it could lead to some odd places.

For example, what if the idea that Joseph Smith was visited by angels is based on the bias and perspective of his culture?  At some point, how willing are we to accept that things we might consider "objective truth" are a result of these biases?  Is it only a tool to help us maintain belief, or should it also be used to challenge and analyze those beliefs themselves?

Truth is always subjectively apprehended by us humans, including our interpretations of any claimed angelic visitation.  "Objective truth" is always beyond human ken.  We simply do the best we can with what we've got.  And sometimes that is part of a consensus that gets us through the day.  So depending on gut instinct and perhaps the Holy Spirit may be the best we can do with our deep religious questions.

[Atheist Mormon]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't follow.  

I wrote;  "Thanks goodness the litmus test is alot easier than this; It is either here we can see or not here we cannot see.."

I just reacted to Mike Ash's essay.

[Physics Guy]

I myself don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but with all respect to Brigham Young, quotation does make a difference. "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God' " can both contain the words of a fool and also be the words of God. Those who do believe that the Bible is inerrant mostly do understand this. It is not because they have never read Job or the story of Balaam that they maintain their belief. If Young really tried to imply that, he was being sophistical.

There are indeed spots where Paul seems (probably) to disavow authority and merely state his personal opinion. There are other spots where he gives no sign that he is speaking with any less authority about the role of women than he does about the atonement of Christ. And there's a neat spot in 1 Peter 3 that commands, "Wives, in the same way obey your husbands." The embarrassing part today is that the "in the same way" refers to 1 Peter 2:18, "slaves, submit to your masters." It would be a lot easier to relativize away the endorsement of slavery while retaining male headship, if only the supposedly inspired author hadn't added that doggone "in the same way."

So I don't think the inerrantists are quite as obviously inconsistent as Young apparently thought they were, but if you look closely, I think you really can't avoid bracketing some things out as ancient cultural context that is not part of the content of scripture. And then it may not be a steep slippery slope that drops you straight down to total relativism, but you do tend to keep edging further the further you look.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Physics Guy

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I wrote;  "Thanks goodness the litmus test is alot easier than this; It is either here we can see or not here we cannot see.."

I just reacted to Mike Ash's essay.

Sorry, I just can't quite understand that sentence.

[Atheist Mormon]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sorry, I just can't quite understand that sentence.

Very simple Robert..........Suppose you are coming to my office to sell me something, before coming on the phone you embellish this product that it will show results....And when you come I want to see it....Well you basically stumble..... A classic story of unfulfilled promises. That's what I read from Mike Ash.... 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

...................................

There are indeed spots where Paul seems (probably) to disavow authority and merely state his personal opinion.

Paul is very explicit on occasion that he is merely giving his own human advice (1 Cor 7:6,25, 2 Cor 8:8,10, 11:17-21).

5 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

There are other spots where he gives no sign that he is speaking with any less authority about the role of women than he does about the atonement of Christ.

And there's a neat spot in 1 Peter 3 that commands, "Wives, in the same way obey your husbands." The embarrassing part today is that the "in the same way" refers to 1 Peter 2:18, "slaves, submit to your masters." It would be a lot easier to relativize away the endorsement of slavery while retaining male headship, if only the supposedly inspired author hadn't added that doggone "in the same way."

In 1 Cor 11:3-16 Paul says that women should have a head covering when they pray or prophesy.  Clearly he thinks they can speak, yet he tells women to remain silent in 14:34, and 1 Tim 2:12 ("I do not permit"), which, if they are not later interpolations, suggest that they are his general recommendation -- not God's.  So also with his notion that women should not have authority over men -- yet the Prophetess Deborah had authority over the Israelite commander Barak and all other Israelites (Judges 4:4-6).  In some cases, as in going along with slavery, his advice may be culture-bound and necessary to keep the Roman state from coming down hard on the young Christian congregations.

5 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

So I don't think the inerrantists are quite as obviously inconsistent as Young apparently thought they were, but if you look closely, I think you really can't avoid bracketing some things out as ancient cultural context that is not part of the content of scripture. And then it may not be a steep slippery slope that drops you straight down to total relativism, but you do tend to keep edging further the further you look.

Fortunately we have prophets to guide us and the Holy Spirit to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

[Robert F. Smith]

39 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Very simple Robert..........Suppose you are coming to my office to sell me something, before coming on the phone you embellish this product that it will show results....And when you come I want to see it....Well you basically stumble..... A classic story of unfulfilled promises. That's what I read from Mike Ash.... 

Sounds like a classic slapstick episode from the late Jerry Lewis, but that still doesn't relate to what Mike Ash said.

[Atheist Mormon]

53 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sounds like a classic slapstick episode from the late Jerry Lewis, but that still doesn't relate to what Mike Ash said.

Well, not directly.....But all that elaboration of BoM and this & that really leads to nowhere....How I'm going to gain testimony from that?