Proof Texting

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

We proof text for two reasons, one is a critical naivete about what the original texts and authors of those texts meant, so this really is an honest mistake which can be solved if people are better educated. 

The second reason is I believe people privilege the texts of scripture as having more authoritative power than the writings of others.  This is part of theology and tradition, yet in Mormonism, as you point out, the concept of continuing revelation should counter balance this text privileging.  

I think what is unfortunate is the way the texts were written, in the first person voice as if it were God who was doing the talking, rather than the author of the text sharing his/her perspective.  This is a literary device that is largely lost on our current generations as people assume that words written in this way were communicated directly from God to the person in perfect form and transmitted to their scriptures.  This just isn't the case.  Even very well read scholars commit this same error in assuming that texts written in first person language represent the unfiltered words of God, rather than the words of the person who wrote the text.  

I'm fine with reading scripture as inspired traditions that have value and lessons to learn, but I make no mistake in thinking that God wrote any of scripture, as all scriptures were written by humans, and represent the thinking of the humans with perhaps some degree of inspiration sprinkled into them.  

Yeah, I really hope this whole ‘“the scriptures are just rambling diatribes with the occasional gem of wisdom” thing never catches on in the church or we are doomed.....DOOMED!!!!

[thesometimesaint]

9 hours ago, Rivers said:

Good point.  I guess nobody is qualified to interpret the Book of Mormon since nobody knows Reformed Egyptian.

Small "r". It is an adjective not a proper noun.

Edited November 3, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[hope_for_things]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, I really hope this whole ‘“the scriptures are just rambling diatribes with the occasional gem of wisdom” thing never catches on in the church or we are doomed.....DOOMED!!!!

Maybe we're doomed then, look at the trend from this 2017 poll.  Fewer literalists everyday.  

http://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx

[rongo]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The Argument to Moderation probably applies here.

I think the anti-proof-texting people swing the pendulum too far in the other direction. To hear them tell it, none of our traditional proof-texts are valid. Absolutely none. 

I think this goes too far in the other direction, and I think some of our traditional proof-texts actually do approximate or nail the "original intent" of the authors. But those who are enamored with slamming proof-texting will never give an inch on any of this. It's entirely predictable.

[rongo]

An example of reverse proof-texting is the tortured attempts to argue that skin color is not meant at all all in Restoration scriptures (BoM, PoGP). Only allegorically and symbolically. 

The Venn diagram of this camp and those who think traditional LDS proof-texts are 100% wrong and embarrassing is essentially just one circle. That's pretty interesting, isn't it? It is a certain conservative reading of the scriptures that they don't like, but proof-texting in a progressive way more to their liking is totally okay. More than okay.

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Maybe we're doomed then, look at the trend from this 2017 poll.  Fewer literalists everyday.  

http://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx

One more sign of the glorious upcoming cleansing of the earth. It is going to be so much fun!!!!!

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

One more sign of the glorious upcoming cleansing of the earth. It is going to be so much fun!!!!!

Literally speaking or metaphorically?  

[cdowis]

16 hours ago, Rivers said:

I recently finished reading This Is My Doctrine by Charles Harrel.  It’s a fascinating read which is all about different ways Mormon doctrines have been understood at different periods of time.  

The thing that really stuck out to me was how much our church proof texts the scriptures.  We are really bad at taking scriptures completely out of context to fit our current theological views. The early Christians did the same with Hebrew Bible.  

As a church which believes in continuing revelation, why do we have to proof-text in order to explain our theology.  Shouldn’t modern revelation be enough to speak for itself?

it appears that your loaded question is based on a false premise.

As I ask my antiMormon friends who often make broad, general assertions, can you give a specific example.

[cdowis]

16 hours ago, Rivers said:

I recently finished reading This Is My Doctrine by Charles Harrel.  It’s a fascinating read which is all about different ways Mormon doctrines have been understood at different periods of time.  

The thing that really stuck out to me was how much our church proof texts the scriptures.  We are really bad at taking scriptures completely out of context to fit our current theological views. The early Christians did the same with Hebrew Bible.  

As a church which believes in continuing revelation, why do we have to proof-text in order to explain our theology.  Shouldn’t modern revelation be enough to speak for itself?

it appears that your loaded question is based on a false premise.

As I ask my antiMormon friends who often make broad, general assertions, can you give a specific example.

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Literally speaking or metaphorically?  

It can be two things.

[cdowis]

16 hours ago, Rivers said:

I recently finished reading This Is My Doctrine by Charles Harrel.  It’s a fascinating read which is all about different ways Mormon doctrines have been understood at different periods of time.  

The thing that really stuck out to me was how much our church proof texts the scriptures.  We are really bad at taking scriptures completely out of context to fit our current theological views. The early Christians did the same with Hebrew Bible.  

As a church which believes in continuing revelation, why do we have to proof-text in order to explain our theology.  Shouldn’t modern revelation be enough to speak for itself?

it appears that your loaded question is based on a false premise.

As I ask my antiMormon friends who often make broad, general assertions, can you give a specific example.

[cdowis]

16 hours ago, Rivers said:

 

 

Bro. Harrell, with all due respect, you are full of baloney. 
This is  classic antiMormon garbage.

Edited November 3, 2017 by cdowis

[hope_for_things]

Just now, The Nehor said:

It can be two things.

I prefer the scrubbing bubbles cleansing of the earth myself.  

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Bro. Harrell, with all due respect, you are full of baloney. 
This is  classic antiMormon garbage.

Its statements like this that remind me just how extreme some people are with respect to their bias.  If Kofford Books and Charlie Harrell are anti-Mormon then perhaps you'd like us to return to the days of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McKonkie style of history deniers, anti intellectual dogmatists, and self righteous prudes.  

[clarkgoble]

35 minutes ago, rongo said:

An example of reverse proof-texting is the tortured attempts to argue that skin color is not meant at all all in Restoration scriptures (BoM, PoGP). Only allegorically and symbolically. 

The Venn diagram of this camp and those who think traditional LDS proof-texts are 100% wrong and embarrassing is essentially just one circle. That's pretty interesting, isn't it? It is a certain conservative reading of the scriptures that they don't like, but proof-texting in a progressive way more to their liking is totally okay. More than okay.

I'm not sure that's correct. After all I don't have problem with proof-texts so long as they're well done. While I didn't mention it I also think that many things designated as proof-texts actually aren't. i.e. adopting scriptural language to make a different point.

 I think some scriptures clearly are about skin color (such as Moses which is dependent upon Genesis). I tend to think the Book of Mormon references are to skin marking (tattoos, dyes) rather than natural skin color but I actually think there are strong arguments for that. i.e. the fact that coloring skin is ubiquitous in period of Book of Mormon in mesoAmerica combined with the speed of which skins change color.

Edited November 3, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Rivers]

10 hours ago, cdowis said:

Bro. Harrell, with all due respect, you are full of baloney. 
This is  classic antiMormon garbage.

He is an active believing member of the church.

[Rivers]

10 hours ago, cdowis said:

it appears that your loaded question is based on a false premise.

As I ask my antiMormon friends who often make broad, general assertions, can you give a specific example.

Romans 8:16.  We use it to show that we are spirit children of God.  In context, Paul is speaking of adoption. 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Romans 8:16.  We use it to show that we are spirit children of God.  In context, Paul is speaking of adoption. 

I've never understood how we are supposed to know that he's talking about adoption.  He's speaking to a group of pagans.

[Rivers]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've never understood how we are supposed to know that he's talking about adoption.  He's speaking to a group of pagans.

He's talking to Christians living in a pagan country.

[Bobbieaware]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've never understood how we are supposed to know that he's talking about adoption.  He's speaking to a group of pagans.

Paul’s epistle to the Romans was written to the members of the Church of Jesus Christ at Rome, as is amply demonstrated by the following verses from chapter one of the same epistle:

7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;

10 Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you.

11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;

12 That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me. (Romans 1)

[clarkgoble]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've never understood how we are supposed to know that he's talking about adoption.  He's speaking to a group of pagans.

That's why. The pagans tended to see God as far more abstract and diverse. Stoicism was the main movement of the day although Platonism definitely had a part.

However while many translations use adoption (as the KJV does) others use "sonship." Again, noting I'm not a greek speaker, my understanding is that the underlying word is huiothesia and literally means placing a son. In some other greek texts this referred to adoption. The counter-argument some (especially Evangelicals) is that there was a rite of becoming a man in Roman culture with a legal background. They argue that's the proper background for Paul.

Getting back to the pagans, the Eleusian mystery religion basically was a rite very loosely analogous to our endowment where one was adopted by a deity. Once adopted one becomes kin to the gods and in effect a kind of god.  Interestingly in later theurgical platonism the ritual was telestic where one draws down the Gods to our crude material world. Within the end of pagan dominance around the time of Iamblichus this was often seen as drawing down the gods into statues to animate them. This was done by use of symbols and tokens. (Tokens here meaning not only what we think of them but also incense, plants, art and other such items) Some have speculated that the word telestial actually comes from telestic as found in translations of figures like Iamblichus by Thomas Taylor and available to Joseph Smith. 

It's worth noting that Paul's emphasis is typically our adoption as sons and daughters of Christ. The same thing pops up in Mosiah 15 especially in Abinadi's exegesis and pesher of Isaiah 52.

Edited November 4, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

11 hours ago, rongo said:

An example of reverse proof-texting is the tortured attempts to argue that skin color is not meant at all all in Restoration scriptures (BoM, PoGP). Only allegorically and symbolically. 

The Venn diagram of this camp and those who think traditional LDS proof-texts are 100% wrong and embarrassing is essentially just one circle. That's pretty interesting, isn't it? It is a certain conservative reading of the scriptures that they don't like, but proof-texting in a progressive way more to their liking is totally okay. More than okay.

Not true.  I am in the first group (based on how black and white is used in the Bible and the context of some Lamanite/Nephites meetings) but definitely not the second.

Edited November 4, 2017 by Calm

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Paul’s epistle to the Romans was written to the members of the Church of Jesus Christ at Rome, as is amply demonstrated by the following verses from chapter one of the same epistle:

7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;

10 Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you.

11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;

12 That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me. (Romans 1)

I'm actually speaking about Acts 17.  Sorry for the confusion.

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Rivers said:

He's talking to Christians living in a pagan country.

Sorry, I was actually referring to Acts 17.  My mistake.

I'm talking about where Paul teaches at Mars Hill, addresses the men of Athens and their worship of the "unknown God", and in teaching them who this unknown God is, declares to the pagans "we are the offspring of God."

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That's why. The pagans tended to see God as far more abstract and diverse. Stoicism was the main movement of the day although Platonism definitely had a part.

However while many translations use adoption (as the KJV does) others use "sonship." Again, noting I'm not a greek speaker, my understanding is that the underlying word is huiothesia and literally means placing a son. In some other greek texts this referred to adoption. The counter-argument some (especially Evangelicals) is that there was a rite of becoming a man in Roman culture with a legal background. They argue that's the proper background for Paul.

Getting back to the pagans, the Eleusian mystery religion basically was a rite very loosely analogous to our endowment where one was adopted by a deity. Once adopted one becomes kin to the gods and in effect a kind of god.  Interestingly in later theurgical platonism the ritual was telestic where one draws down the Gods to our crude material world. Within the end of pagan dominance around the time of Iamblichus this was often seen as drawing down the gods into statues to animate them. This was done by use of symbols and tokens. (Tokens here meaning not only what we think of them but also incense, plants, art and other such items) Some have speculated that the word telestial actually comes from telestic as found in translations of figures like Iamblichus by Thomas Taylor and available to Joseph Smith. 

It's worth noting that Paul's emphasis is typically our adoption as sons and daughters of Christ. The same thing pops up in Mosiah 15 especially in Abinadi's exegesis and pesher of Isaiah 52.

I was confused and was actually referring to Acts 17, where Paul teaches the men of athens and says "we are the offspring of God."  Sorry for the confusion.