The Standard Works - Our Measuring Rod?

[FormerLDS]

20 hours ago, pogi said:

Former LDS, what do you believe about those passages I posted in the OP?  Do you accept them as God's word and will for women?  Do you accept every word written in the Bible as fundamental doctrine and truth?  If so, perhaps you have your own scabs to pick at...

I am personally comfortable with inconsistency from the brethren and the scriptures.  I expect it.  I am just playing devils advocate (which ironically seems to be the position of the church), to see how others deal with these seeming inconsistencies. 

What do other people use as their standard?  Why? How do they reconcile these things in their minds?  I am just curious to see the thought process of other members regarding the scriptures in light of the church's teachings. 

Pogi, I attend a Baptist Church, and I'm certain there are women in Baptist congregations that feel 100% the same way as LDS women feel regarding the verses you provided.  Not all Baptist congregations are the same and/or even believe exactly the same way.  If it's helpful, I would say that, based upon what I have personally experienced as a member of both LDS and non-LDS congregations, LDS Christian women have much greater power and influence in their congregations than non-LDS Christian women in their (Baptist) congregations.

Is that good?  Is that bad?  I don't know, but I can admit that if I had the task of speaking on those specific verses in a Ward meeting or in a Baptist Church, I do think I would certainly have more reservations about speaking on those verses in a Ward.  [Full disclosure: Songbooks could be thrown in either scenario.] 

[hope_for_things]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, it does not fit at all because you left out the whole “God talking” thing that makes it revelation.

Not really, if you check back on my first description, here is what I said.  

Quote

Honestly, how do you make big decisions in your own life.  Do you prefer to do your homework, research things, ask others for their opinions, gather data, analyze the problem, consider options, seek advice and inspiration. 

I included more traditional religious terms for seeking inspiration and I'm guessing you'd call that the whole "God talking" thing.  But honestly I think the rest of my explanation can be considered God talking too.  Does God talk through science, Henry Eyring seemed to think that God speaks his word through the rocks, and BYU professors who teach biology find evolution to be an inspired natural process.  Can God guide people through others, through research, through data, through nature?  Did God talk to Spencer W. Kimball when he wrestled with overcoming his biases towards blacks?  

How does "God talking" work according to you?  Does talking with God work like asking Siri a question, or is it more complicated?  Perhaps God is speaking to you through me, are you willing to listen to that?  

Edited April 12, 2018 by hope_for_things

[bluebell]

22 hours ago, pogi said:

Agreed.  The point I am trying to make though is that the canonized word is more authoritative as official doctrine in the church, as they have been accepted and approved unanimously by the first presidency, quorum of the 12, and by common consent of the general membership.  It is the standard by which we are counseled to measure all words of the prophets against, and is binding upon us:

The word "canon" itself means this:

The standard works are more authoritative than any isolated statement from a prophet because of the process it has been subjected to.  This has been so consistently taught in the church that it would be near impossible to argue that this is not the official position of the church.  

There are hundreds of these quotes from official sources consistently taught in the church.  

That means that passages I posted in the OP are more authoritative than any non-canonical teachings or practice...that is the conundrum that I am finding difficult to reconcile.  

We are not bound to follow ALL of the prophets words, but only when he is speaking as a prophet.  However, we are taught that when a book/revelation has gone through the process of being accepted by common consent, it absolutely becomes binding upon us.  That is why the modern version of the word of wisdom is binding upon us (even though it is not found in the scriptures) - it was accepted by common consent of the church, thus becoming a covenant commandment that we are bound to follow.  By the same law, we are bound to all passages of scripture that have been accepted by the same process.  

I just realized I never responded to this, sorry.  It's probably good that I did though because I think that Clark has already dealt with some of your criticisms.  Church leaders often say things that are contradictory and this topic has plenty of quotes associated with it that contradict each other.  For me, I agree with the 'a living prophet is more important to us than a dead one' teaching because it fits in with article of faith 9.  

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

How is presenting an idea for review and vote of the brethren is a measuring stick use of the Holy Ghost?  I don't see how that works in practice.  So in essence the unanimity of a group of 15 men is the mechanism for how we as lay member are to know if the Holy Ghost condones the decisions that come from the brethren.  Unanimous votes = Holy Ghost approved, lack of unanimity = Holy Ghost denied.  

I think you missed my point.  You were dismissing the Holy Spirit as a reliable measuring stick because it is a subjective experience.  First, how could you trust it if it was not a subjective experience?  Anything that is not a subjective experience is beyond the realms of being knowable.

Here is what you said:

Quote

A literal/physical measuring rod is an objective tool that can be used in very practical ways and that can be agreed upon in a group setting.  I don't see how the Holy Spirit could be used in the same way.  Its subjective and personal.  

There is no such thing as objective experience.  Our experience with this "objective" tool is a personal and subjective experience, and yet we can all agree upon what this "objective" tool is telling us.  When that happens, we accept our subjective experience as reliable. The Holy Spirit and the law of common consent is no different.  

You compared the HG to a measuring stick and I said that is a poor comparison because a real measuring stick is something that you and I and others can use and come up with the same objective results.  The length of my laptop computer is 11.3 inches long, that is an objective measurement that can be replicated by an objective observer, and it can be used in a very practical way, you could purchase a laptop bag that my laptop would fit in if you know the correct size without ever seeing my laptop in person.  

If we can all agree upon the measurement of something, then its objective.  Something that's personal and subjective like a feeling we have about how we experience something spiritual, we can't all agree on that precisely because it is subjective.  There might be some elements of objectivity about spiritual experiences, perhaps neuroscientific research on people having spiritual experiences and how particular parts of the brain activate under these conditions.  But I don't think you're talking about that kind of objectivity.  

[pogi]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think you're missing my point. The issue isn't whether scriptures are of prime importance. Of course they are and I agree with most of the quotes you offer. The question is what does that mean in practice.  When I raise hermeneutics it's because we have to interpret the scriptures. That was the point of my earlier Brigham Young quote. Merely saying the scriptures are the measuring tape isn't helpful unless we explain how we interpret them.

To get at my point about Paul in the other thread, I can see scriptures as the measuring rod yet surely it matters whether Paul is giving his opinion or inspiration in a quote. It matters whether he's speaking with authority from the Apostles in Jerusalem or giving his own best wisdom. I can see the scriptures as key, but unless I adopt a sola scripture and inerrancy view, then the meaning I take from Paul can vary a great deal.

The presumption by many (and I admit I'm assuming you share this presumption) is that the scriptures are straightforward and these questions don't matter. But Brigham Young's point is that it matters very much who is speaking in scripture, upon what basis and upon what authority. One can't simply say that because scriptures are our measuring tape that everything in them is on the same footing.

In practice, I use the scriptures the same way you do.  I don't accept every verse as God's word and will.  I don't believe that every word is inspired and authoritative.  That is the point I have been trying to make from the beginning.  It seems that most here hold that same perspective.  If using the scriptures as a measuring rod was my only point, I would agree with you and move on.  However, that is not my main point. My main point has to do more with the law of common consent and articles of faith 8.  With that as a backdrop, it makes things problematic because we are officially doctrinal bound to accept every passage of scripture as doctrine to measure all teachings against.   

When the church accepted the standard works as doctrine through common consent, they did not allow for the same leniency that most members allow themselves in accepting some passages and rejecting others as mere opinion of the author (non-authoritative).  The teachings of the church - that which we have accepted as binding doctrine by common consent states that all scripture is the word of God (not opinion of the authors) as far as it is translated correctly.  We have accepted it all (without caveat) as our official doctrine and is therefore all authoritative and binding upon us.  In accepting the entire Bible as authoritative doctrine, we accepted those verses that I quoted in the OP as binding authoritative doctrine - again there was no caveat other then correct translation.  It is all official doctrine of the church insofar as it is translated correctly.  That is why I asked earlier - did we bind ourselves into a pickle?  Because we clearly do not really believe that (most of us anyway) yet we have covenanted to treat all scripture as the word of God.  That is the conundrum I have been remarking on. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, FormerLDS said:

Pogi, I attend a Baptist Church, and I'm certain there are women in Baptist congregations that feel 100% the same way as LDS women feel regarding the verses you provided.  Not all Baptist congregations are the same and/or even believe exactly the same way.  If it's helpful, I would say that, based upon what I have personally experienced as a member of both LDS and non-LDS congregations, LDS Christian women have much greater power and influence in their congregations than non-LDS Christian women in their (Baptist) congregations.

Is that good?  Is that bad?  I don't know, but I can admit that if I had the task of speaking on those specific verses in a Ward meeting or in a Baptist Church, I do think I would certainly have more reservations about speaking on those verses in a Ward.  [Full disclosure: Songbooks could be thrown in either scenario.] 

Hi Former, 

How do you personally perceive those verses?  Are they the word of God, or are they based on uninspired cultural influences?  Are they authoritative?  Is a baptist woman allowed to speak and ask questions at church, or are they required to ask their husbands at home?  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

You compared the HG to a measuring stick and I said that is a poor comparison because a real measuring stick is something that you and I and others can use and come up with the same objective results. 

When the first presidency and quorum of the 12 are all unified in spirit and confirmation, along with the general membership of the church via common consent, then we too come up with the same objective results. It is no different. 

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

If we can all agree upon the measurement of something, then its objective.  

Ok, then when all the brethren are in spiritual agreement then it is objective too, right?  Objectivity is nothing more then a shared subjective experience. That is what the Holy Spirit offers. 

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

How, specifically, do you practice identifying God Talking and differentiating between those other potential sources I mentioned?

By talking to God and learning to differentiate between the two. There is no manual covering it. You learn by doing.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Not really, if you check back on my first description, here is what I said.  

I included more traditional religious terms for seeking inspiration and I'm guessing you'd call that the whole "God talking" thing.  But honestly I think the rest of my explanation can be considered God talking too.  Does God talk through science, Henry Eyring seemed to think that God speaks his word through the rocks, and BYU professors who teach biology find evolution to be an inspired natural process.  Can God guide people through others, through research, through data, through nature?  Did God talk to Spencer W. Kimball when he wrestled with overcoming his biases towards blacks?  

How does "God talking" work according to you?  Does talking with God work like asking Siri a question, or is it more complicated?  Perhaps God is speaking to you through me, are you willing to listen to that?  

And revelation is so watered down there it becomes meaningless. Reading a menu at a restaurant is God revealing Himself at that point.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

When the first presidency and quorum of the 12 are all unified in spirit and confirmation, along with the general membership of the church via common consent, then we too come up with the same objective results. It is no different. 

Its completely different, I'm not sure how you are confusing this comparison.  A measuring standard like the metric system, is objective because it is established and everyone agrees on how it works and understands it in precisely the same way.  

For starters with the Holy Ghost you'd have to say that everyone in the church also has the same understanding and way of measuring it.  Just thinking back to discussions in church on this topic, there are a multitude of differences in how people experience and interpret these experiences.  There is no standard way that everyone has agreed upon.  In addition, there is no way for another person to replicate and evaluate the results of each individual. 

I don't see how there is any substance to this comparison. 

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Ok, then when all the brethren are in spiritual agreement then it is objective too, right?  Objectivity is nothing more then a shared subjective experience. That is what the Holy Spirit offers. 

No, I disagree with this as well.  Just because you have 15 people agreeing to something doesn't make that something objective.  Because something is popular doesn't make it objective.  I'm really struggling to understand where your points are coming from.  

[FormerLDS]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Hi Former, 

How do you personally perceive those verses?  Are they the word of God, or are they based on uninspired cultural influences?  Are they authoritative?  Is a baptist woman allowed to speak and ask questions at church, or are they required to ask their husbands at home?  

I personally believe that all of the Bible was inspired by God and is perfectly preserved and authoritative just as God spoke it and intended for us to have His words.  [I know that sounds ridiculous, but it takes just as much faith for me to believe what I believe as it does to believe in any of the "restored truth" concepts.] 

I view these as policy ("Thou shalt not...") and guidance ("Thou should not...").  One is mandatory and one is more of a best practice or recommendation.  The emphasis is that the woman not have a position of authority in the church over a man or a woman teaching a man within the church setting.  For example, a woman should not teach a Sunday School class that both men and woman attend.  

Likewise Women aren't being instructed to not wear clothes or to never speak while in the congregation.  If Women are not permitted to speak [at all] in church, then how could they pray or prophesy?

If you haven't ever done it before, you should consider dropping in on a Wednesday evening bible study in a local Baptist congregation some time and see for yourself first-hand.    

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And revelation is so watered down there it becomes meaningless. Reading a menu at a restaurant is God revealing Himself at that point.

Yes, you surely might find God in a menu at a restaurant, why not?  I think the version of revelation that you're promoting is not actually what you truly believe.  I just think you haven't aligned your descriptions of reality and how you actually operate in life.  I don't know many people who treat God like Siri, except for very young children.  Even orthodox members that I know don't function in a way where they treat God like that.  They typically don't expect those kinds of simple ask and answer type experiences in day to day life, but people still talk about the miraculous at church as if its something to aspire to, yet in real life they don't behave like those kinds of things happen. 

I think we're going through a transition where reality is slowly coming back into alignment with the stories people tell.  

[pogi]

 

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Its completely different, I'm not sure how you are confusing this comparison.  A measuring standard like the metric system, is objective because it is established and everyone agrees on how it works and understands it in precisely the same way.  

For starters with the Holy Ghost you'd have to say that everyone in the church also has the same understanding and way of measuring it.  Just thinking back to discussions in church on this topic, there are a multitude of differences in how people experience and interpret these experiences.  There is no standard way that everyone has agreed upon.  In addition, there is no way for another person to replicate and evaluate the results of each individual. 

I don't see how there is any substance to this comparison. 

No, I disagree with this as well.  Just because you have 15 people agreeing to something doesn't make that something objective.  Because something is popular doesn't make it objective.  I'm really struggling to understand where your points are coming from.  

Hope, there is a standard way that is agreed upon in seeking revelation - James 1:5.  Because the spirit might speak to people in different ways doesn't mean it is telling people differing things.

You can rely on your tools all you want - that is great if you want to build a house.  But if you want to build the kingdom of God...good luck with that!  We have better tools for that. 

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

2 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

I personally believe that all of the Bible was inspired by God and is perfectly preserved and authoritative just as God spoke it and intended for us to have His words.  [I know that sounds ridiculous, but it takes just as much faith for me to believe what I believe as it does to believe in any of the "restored truth" concepts.] 

I view these as policy ("Thou shalt not...") and guidance ("Thou should not...").  One is mandatory and one is more of a best practice or recommendation.  The emphasis is that the woman not have a position of authority in the church over a man or a woman teaching a man within the church setting.  For example, a woman should not teach a Sunday School class that both men and woman attend.  

Likewise Women aren't being instructed to not wear clothes or to never speak while in the congregation.  If Women are not permitted to speak [at all] in church, then how could they pray or prophesy?

If you haven't ever done it before, you should consider dropping in on a Wednesday evening bible study in a local Baptist congregation some time and see for yourself first-hand.    

Sorry Former, I can't accept those verses in the OP as authoritative and inspired by the mind and will of God.  Even if they were only said in a "Thou should not" kind of way.  The wife should not be subject unto the husband: "Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord".  The woman is not the "weaker vessel".  It is not a shame for woman to speak, teach, or ask questions at church.  A woman is not saved only through "childbearing".  And finally, woman is as much the image and glory of God as man is.  All of these passages are influenced by culture more then God - otherwise I have a big problem with God. 

P.S. I have scouts on Wednesdays, otherwise I might attend. 

[hope_for_things]

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

Hope, there is a standard way that is agreed upon in seeking revelation - James 1:5.  Because the spirit might speak to people in different ways doesn't mean it is telling people differing things.

You can rely on your tools all you want - that is great if you want to build a house.  But if you want to build the kingdom of God...good luck with that!  We have better tools for that. 

 

People can't agree on what it is that they are experiencing with respect to spiritual matters, let alone get agreement on the meaning of those experiences.  How in the world can you call this objective?  Its like calling the way I love my spouse objective, or the birth of my babies, or the way I experienced awe when I first saw images from the Hubble space telescope.  These are experiences, they are meaningful experiences to me and my life, but they aren't objective, there is nothing about them that people can objectively measure.  

I'm baffled as to how you think there is anything objective and measurable about spiritual experiences.  

Edited April 12, 2018 by hope_for_things

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

People can't agree on what it is that they are experiencing with respect to spiritual matters, let alone get agreement on the meaning of those experiences.  How in the world can you call this objective?

I am not calling it objective.  I am calling it subjective.  My argument is that all experience is subjective - even the use of "objective tools" is a subjective experience.  All subjective experience is ineffable.  You cannot guarantee that your subjective experience of an objective tool is equal to mine.  We might ultimately agree upon the same language to describe the experience, but that language is not the experience.  So it is with the Holy Spirit - it is ineffable, yet we often agree upon the same language to describe the experience - it is a spiritually based warmth, peace, calm assurance, goodness, inspiration, voice, dream, vision, etc.  And when we all agree that we are having a "spiritual" experience and agree upon the message the spirit is telling us, in confirming a teaching or revelation, then we consider that reliable.  It is a shared subjective experience, just like using an "objective tool" is a shared subjective experience.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Its like calling the way I love my spouse objective, or the birth of my babies, or the way I experienced awe when I first saw images from the Hubble space telescope.  These are experiences, they are meaningful experiences to me and my life, but they aren't objective, there is nothing about them that people can objectively measure.  

I'm baffled as to how you think there is anything objective and measurable about spiritual experiences.  

"Objective measurements" are nothing more than agreed upon subjective experiences. 

Edited April 12, 2018 by pogi

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am not calling it objective.  I am calling it subjective.  My argument is that all experience is subjective - even the use of "objective tools" is a subjective experience.  All subjective experience is ineffable.  You cannot guarantee that your subjective experience of an objective tool is equal to mine.  We might ultimately agree upon the same language to describe the experience, but that language is not the experience. 

Thanks for the additional clarity.  There is a problem with the comparison that you're making.  While it is true that there is a degree of subjectivity with respect to every observation that we humans make in a very technical sense.  If I measuring my laptop with a ruler, I might get the same measurement as if you measure that same laptop, but perhaps my understanding of how the measuring system works might vary ever so  slightly from your understanding.  Perhaps we can't see everything in the same way with 100% precision.  I acknowledge that every observation about reality has some level of subjectivity to it. 

However, I think you should acknowledge that this is quite different than how you are claiming spiritual experiences work.  There is virtually nothing similar about these things.  Making measurements using tools and coming up with the exact same results 99.99% of the time, in spite of our different subjective perspectives of the world is an amazingly useful way of observing the universe with practical application that is far reaching and has advanced the human civilization forward in countless ways. 

Trying to come to agreement about what subjective spiritual experiences are like and what they mean, may have some benefit from a social cohesion perspective, bonding with other humans, and expressing feelings about the beauties of the experiences of life.  However, this is entirely different than scientific observations using established tools for measurement.  

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

So it is with the Holy Spirit - it is ineffable, yet we often agree upon the same language to describe the experience - it is a spiritually based warmth, peace, calm assurance, goodness, inspiration, voice, dream, vision, etc.  And when we all agree that we are having a "spiritual" experience and agree upon the message the spirit is telling us, in confirming a teaching or revelation, then we consider that reliable.  It is a shared subjective experience, just like using an "objective tool" is a shared subjective experience.

All this is well and good, but its absolutely not just like using an objective tool is a shared subjective experience.  These two examples are different in almost every way I can think of.  That you are trying to say they are the same is somewhat of an insult to both systems from my perspective.  I agree with many of your statements about the experiences of spirituality.  Is it "reliable"?  Well that depends on what you mean by reliable.  Can we rely on these experiences to be profound, powerful, awakening, and perhaps disturbing, I would say yes.  Can we rely on these experiences to tell us how to make decisions in our lives, who to marry, what job to take, how to invest, I don't think that would be wise to expect that these experiences tell us how to act.  We might find meaning in the experience that influences our decision making, but to expect that these experiences are clear signals that we have to somehow decode in order to determine how to proceed, seems to me a very unrealistic and superstitious position.  

 

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

However, this is entirely different than scientific observations using established tools for measurement.  

Yep.  Two different tools for two different purposes.  Your tools are great for building houses, but they are not as useful in building the kingdom of God - different tools for different jobs.

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't think that would be wise to expect that these experiences tell us how to act. 

Ok, what do you suggest as a more reliable tool?  Do you have an objective tool that you measure your morality against and base your actions on?  You think it unwise to base our decisions on the spirit, but I think it unwise to base our moral/spiritual decisions on...anything else.  Prove to me that your tools are more reliable then mine.

You can build your moral code on whatever tool you want, but I will use the spirit.  I find it a more reliable source of peace and joy then anything else I have tried. 

[CV75]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

In practice, I use the scriptures the same way you do.  I don't accept every verse as God's word and will.  I don't believe that every word is inspired and authoritative.  That is the point I have been trying to make from the beginning.  It seems that most here hold that same perspective.  If using the scriptures as a measuring rod was my only point, I would agree with you and move on.  However, that is not my main point. My main point has to do more with the law of common consent and articles of faith 8.  With that as a backdrop, it makes things problematic because we are officially doctrinal bound to accept every passage of scripture as doctrine to measure all teachings against.   

When the church accepted the standard works as doctrine through common consent, they did not allow for the same leniency that most members allow themselves in accepting some passages and rejecting others as mere opinion of the author (non-authoritative).  The teachings of the church - that which we have accepted as binding doctrine by common consent states that all scripture is the word of God (not opinion of the authors) as far as it is translated correctly.  We have accepted it all (without caveat) as our official doctrine and is therefore all authoritative and binding upon us.  In accepting the entire Bible as authoritative doctrine, we accepted those verses that I quoted in the OP as binding authoritative doctrine - again there was no caveat other then correct translation.  It is all official doctrine of the church insofar as it is translated correctly.  That is why I asked earlier - did we bind ourselves into a pickle?  Because we clearly do not really believe that (most of us anyway) yet we have covenanted to treat all scripture as the word of God.  That is the conundrum I have been remarking on. 

The Standard Works as the measuring rod for truth is figurative to describe their role in the mental exercise of comparing and assessing prophetic statements when a question arises. The mental exercise is not the end of determining whether a prophet is speaking the truth. The spiritual exercise of praying about our understanding and conclusions has to be integrated into the process.

The Standard Works are not a perfect measuring rod, but they are the best measuring rod we have. Certainly the readers are not perfectly skilled users of the tool either, but we are the best God has. We are bound to use an imperfect tool, just as God is in using His saints.

Also, each of the Standard Works has to be integrated with the others, and each verse integrated with the other verses to create a whole picture. This is what constitutes “all scripture.” “All” is the sum of its parts, not the disparate parts taken in isolation. We are not in a pickle when we treat the whole as the word of God with the help of the Holy Spirit.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, you surely might find God in a menu at a restaurant, why not?  I think the version of revelation that you're promoting is not actually what you truly believe.  I just think you haven't aligned your descriptions of reality and how you actually operate in life.  I don't know many people who treat God like Siri, except for very young children.  Even orthodox members that I know don't function in a way where they treat God like that.  They typically don't expect those kinds of simple ask and answer type experiences in day to day life, but people still talk about the miraculous at church as if its something to aspire to, yet in real life they don't behave like those kinds of things happen. 

I think we're going through a transition where reality is slowly coming back into alignment with the stories people tell.  

Nope, that is what I believe though I do all the work stuff I can to make it happen. Not truly childish. A child just asks for what they want and expects a quick answer and will yell your name repeatedly until you respond (at least that is how my nieces and nephews operate). I tend to focus revelation on my callings and responsibilities and sometimes just ask to be taught something (a favorite in the temple).

I prefer the stories people tell. Give me outpourings of the spirit and angels and visions and dreams and the Holy Ghost burning within me all the time so I can find it with a thought over consensus building with the best reason can come up with. Most people (even many in the Church) prefer the latter because it can be controlled. When you deal with God you are reduced to the child. You only get what God can and will give you. It is like giving a blessing. There is always that moment of nervousness that this time it won't work and this time the words and images won't come but they do. With real revelation you jump off a cliff trusting you will be caught.

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

If using the scriptures as a measuring rod was my only point, I would agree with you and move on.  However, that is not my main point. My main point has to do more with the law of common consent and articles of faith 8.  With that as a backdrop, it makes things problematic because we are officially doctrinal bound to accept every passage of scripture as doctrine to measure all teachings against. 

I think you're still missing my point. You're assuming that those mean every sentence is equal. My point is that hermeneutics undermines that claim. Every sentence has it's meaning relative to much of the whole. You can't say that everything is equal as that presupposes a hermeneutic and exegesis that is in question.

To give a set of sentences authority - even in the limited sense of a measuring metaphor - presupposes one knows what they mean. That's really all I'm saying. I'm saying meaning comes prior to use.

Edited April 12, 2018 by clarkgoble

[MormonMason]

On 4/11/2018 at 8:52 AM, FormerLDS said:

Pogi, I'd say you're seeing the tip of the conundrum iceberg.  If you keep picking at this scab and you could end up in a more formal discussion with church council.  

But I encourage you to continue seeking, ask questions and try to look objectively at what you've been taught.  Why are there so many things that just don't quite add up with LDS theology?  I remember wondering why the prophet never finished the translation of the Bible (JST).  I mean, if we have a living prophet, and Heavenly Father clearly wanted us to have this, why hasn't this been finished?   Why does the BoM (most correct of any book) have verbatim passages from the KJV, yet the JST corrected those "mistranslated" KJV passages?  How embarrassing!

Truth - if it really is truth - will always withstand questions,  but error can never be questioned (for good reason)...  

The Book of Mormon contains mostly material from an Egyptian translation of a Hebrew text, not the originals.  JST is an attempt at getting at the original meanings, by revelation and by other means.  And a good amount of material found in the JST comes right out of the Book of Mormon, verbatim.  Frankly, I would expect some differences.

Keep in mind that in some places in the Bible there is a literal meaning that may or may not convey the fullest meaning behind the text, and also the deeper meaning intended by the writer.

In some other cases Joseph Smith did little differently than do scholarly translators of some versions of the Bible.  He used verbiage from an older translation, in this case the KJV.  See NASB 1977 for examples of KJV verbiage in OT quotations in the Book of Hebrews.  Or see Bible quotes in some of the volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers series.

But eyewitness accounts state that Joseph Smith used no Bible, books, or manuscripts, during translation sessions.  In the Whitmer home, during which time the large Isaiah quotes were penned, they all were neglecting chores to watch the translation process, which quite frequently got up Mrs. Whitmer's dander until she was allowed to see the plates for herself as incentive to let them be.

[MormonMason]

10 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

[Full disclosure: Songbooks could be thrown in either scenario.] 

Baptist songbooks I've seen are almost twice as heavy and thick as LDS hymnbooks.  I'd imagine they might hurt a bit more. 

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think you're still missing my point. You're assuming that those mean every sentence is equal. My point is that hermeneutics undermines that claim. Every sentence has it's meaning relative to much of the whole. You can't say that everything is equal as that presupposes a hermeneutic and exegesis that is in question.

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly."  

This is our official and binding doctrine that we have upheld and accepted by covenant and common consent.  Are you suggesting that hermeneutics undermines that authoritative and official claim? I am not the one personally making that claim, I am simply repeating the authoritative official position and doctrine of the church as stated in our articles of faith.  Not only have we upheld that verse as authoritative and doctrinal, but we have further validated that claim by upholding the entire bible as authoritative and doctrinal by covenant and common consent (with the only caveat being that it is translated correctly).   

I don't see where it says, "as far as hermeneutics allows".

You can't simply state that hermeneutics undermines a claim until you actually apply it. The claim is made in Articles of Faith 1:8, so have at it...

 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The Standard Works as the measuring rod for truth is figurative to describe their role in the mental exercise of comparing and assessing prophetic statements when a question arises. The mental exercise is not the end of determining whether a prophet is speaking the truth. The spiritual exercise of praying about our understanding and conclusions has to be integrated into the process.

The Standard Works are not a perfect measuring rod, but they are the best measuring rod we have. Certainly the readers are not perfectly skilled users of the tool either, but we are the best God has. We are bound to use an imperfect tool, just as God is in using His saints.

Also, each of the Standard Works has to be integrated with the others, and each verse integrated with the other verses to create a whole picture. This is what constitutes “all scripture.” “All” is the sum of its parts, not the disparate parts taken in isolation. We are not in a pickle when we treat the whole as the word of God with the help of the Holy Spirit.

If we accept the whole as the word of God...then how do you explain those verse mentioned in the OP?  How do you integrate them into the whole without outright dismissing them?  It seems an impossible task for any genuine person to achieve. 

I don't accept those verses as the word of God.  They should not be included and validated as part of the "whole" - the "word of God".  Rather, I see them as cultural influences copied in epistles of fallible men. Yet, we accept them as authoritative and doctrinal as part of the whole. 

Edited April 13, 2018 by pogi