The Standard Works - Our Measuring Rod?

[clarkgoble]

17 hours ago, pogi said:

I'll be honest, I thought I knew what you were saying, but now I am confused. 

On one hand you are saying the following (from the previous thread); which happens to be the position that I too hold:

And this (from this thread):

But now it sounds like you are saying that all scripture (given the proper interpretation and understanding of the intended meaning) IS authoritative.  Can you clarify where you stand?  If not all scripture is doctrinal, how can it all be authoritative? 

I don't equate doctrine and authority. Authority affects what is considered doctrine but doctrine is a pretty nebulous term. I don't think one could ever say that doctrine is what comes from applying scriptural authority, for instance. That might be where we're talking past one an other. Further I think something can be authoritative and yet be wrong since I'm a fallibilist towards authority. To give an analogy a police officer can incorrectly arrest me, but that doesn't mean it's not authority.

Quote

To clarify further, do you believe that those passages from Paul and Peter in the OP are the authoritative and doctrinal word of God, or do you believe that it is Paul's uninspired "reasoning from shared beliefs"?

I'd say that's a false dichotomy again. To say the passages we have to ask what they mean and what their authority is in context. In other words you're asking questions of authority without first asking the hermeneutics questions. Let me give a simpler example that Joseph used to explain this same point. Noah was told to build an ark. It doesn't follow from scriptural authority that we are to build an ark. Why? Because the meaning of the passage doesn't apply an universal claim. You are arguing Paul and Peter are, but that's largely a presupposition that itself has to be argued for in terms of meaning. (The hermeneutic question)

This is why I keep saying you're neglecting the key issues for the second level question of authority.

Quote

If you accept those passages as the word of God, then what is the proper meaning of them? 

I make no claims to be able to give proper meaning. I'll leave that to others.  (That's why this gets complicated)

But more to the point, what does it mean to be the word of God? If God allowed the Old Testament to survive to the NT era, acknowledging a lot was lost, does that make it all the word of God - errors and all?

Quote

You keep telling me that I am ignoring the hermeneutics and accepting a fundamentalist view point.  On the contrary, I am trying to pry the hermeneutics out of you. You seem to be confident that there is "no conflict", so help me understand the proper meaning of the passages.  How do we reconcile these things?  In other words, don't just tell me that hermeneutics solves all of these seeming conflicts...show me. Because I would absolutely love to have these things settled in my mind.

Not sure what you mean. I think you're trying to pry a particular exegesis from me. But hermeneutics (interpretating) is different from its product (interpretation). I'm presupposing that distinction. So I think the analysis of how we use scripture authoritatively has to acknowledge that we don't all interpret the passages the same way. Indeed it has to acknowledge that there are many ways to interpret the passage and that there's ultimately not a good way to fully weed out the interpretations. It's a case of too many interpretations.

So even if I gave a good exegesis using the latest scholarship while acknowledging the scriptures are in some sense holistic and try to tie this to theology, the reality would be that this would be but one interpretation among many. And quite possibly a wrong one. If scripture has authority and yet I apply authority to a bad interpretation, am I using the scriptures authoritatively?

 

Edited April 13, 2018 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What?  I think you're getting turned around.  You are the one claiming that the Holy Spirit is a tool by which we can measure spiritual experiences.  I'm the one disputing this claim.  These spiritual answers are subjective, not objective.  There isn't an accurate way of measuring spiritual experiences at all, that's the whole point I've been making.  

Exactly, if it is subjective...you can't objectively tell me that I am wrong for my subjective beliefs and tools. 

38 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It depends.  There isn't one right or wrong universal answer, everything is circumstantial and requires evaluation.  That's why it takes critical thinking.  You can't just google it and get an answer.  You have to put in the effort and weigh the pros and cons and look at things from multiple angles.  This is with respect to every moral situation.  I didn't say its an objective process, it is subjective.  I never made the claim that there is some ultimate objective morality.  

Ok, now we are getting somewhere.  That is right, THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TOOL to measure an objective morality.  And that is why your choice of critical thinking over intuition is flawed in regard to spiritual matters.  What good is critical thinking if there is no objective data or universal morality to be critical about?  How can critical thinking tell you what is good and what is evil?  It can't!!!  Because there is no objective universal data to evaluate.  We are left to rely on our intuition...our heart.

 

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

What?  I think you're getting turned around.  You are the one claiming that the Holy Spirit is a tool by which we can measure spiritual experiences.  I'm the one disputing this claim.  These spiritual answers are subjective, not objective.  There isn't an accurate way of measuring spiritual experiences at all, that's the whole point I've been making.  

Exactly, if it is subjective...you can't objectively tell me that I am wrong for my subjective beliefs and tools. 

Its not that I'm saying you're completely wrong, but there are flaws in the way you're applying this idea of spiritual experiences being a measuring tool that we can all agree on.  Everyone's subjective experiences are different.  The comparison to a measuring tool is your comparison, and its flawed for the various reason's I've explained.  

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ok, now we are getting somewhere.  That is right, THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TOOL to measure an objective morality.  And that is why your choice of critical thinking over intuition is flawed in regard to spiritual matters.  What good is critical thinking if there is no objective data or universal morality to be critical about?  How can critical thinking tell you what is good and what is evil?  It can't!!!  Because there is no objective universal data to evaluate.  We are left to rely on our intuition...our heart.

Ok, help me understand this assertion you're making where you're saying critical thinking isn't useful if there isn't universal morality.  Lets me give an example using your logic and you tell me why it doesn't apply.  Pretend there is a intentioned (good hearted) individual who just wants to do what's right according to his subjective understanding of the universe.  This person has a vision where God tells him to kill innocent children at a school because the people who attend this school are disfavored by God and living wicked lives.  Using your logic, there is no objective data by which we can evaluate this persons actions as being good or bad.

From my perspective, we need to use the data available to us to evaluate actions and behaviors to determine if we believe they are moral and good.  In a civilized society this is put into practice through laws with punishments for disobeying these laws.  Since there isn't some universal Google that can answer every moral question for us, this requires that we critically analyze every situation and very carefully try to determine what is morally good and bad.  

How does your view of things work in a practical real life scenario?  I'm failing to understand how what you've articulated would actually work.  

[CV75]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

My answer was no less unanswerable than your question.  Some studies that I've read talk about accuracy declining with time, but I don't know of any way to put a precise number on "how often".  

Of course it matters.  Would you want to make financial decisions using flawed financial data?  Should we care about accuracy of the history books written that we study in schools?  Would you want to make medical decisions using flawed medical memories?  It matters for virtually everything we do in this life.  

I really don't get this, you seem to be taking a similar angle that Pogi has been taking.   Its really a strange perspective, and I'm somewhat of a relativist when it comes to philosophical discussions and typically get a lot of push back from more conservative thinking people on my perspective.  Now you and Pogi are making this argument that we can't really judge anything because everything is flawed and subjective so we should consider all things equally impossible to judge, which seems to me like your taking the relativist argument to an even further point that I'm willing to take it.  Maybe one of you can help me understand this, because I'm not following this line of thinking.  

The beef / push-back is with the incessant effort to divorce objective and subjective processes from each other; in your case, only promoting the disciplines of "science" as preferable to those of "spirituality" when addressing religious issues with those who have integrated both into their practice.

The argument is that you, as a professedly objective thinker and actor cannot do any better than a subjective believer because in fact, you are "one of us" -- above all else you are still a subjective being, which you claim is in no position to judge, at least judge well. The successful quest to eliminate subjectivity from the human equation renders you an object, which cannot possibly judge at all.

[clarkgoble]

35 minutes ago, pogi said:

Exactly, if it is subjective...you can't objectively tell me that I am wrong for my subjective beliefs and tools. 

You all might want to unpack what you mean by objective and subjective. I sense a lot of equivocating going on.

[pogi]

 

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I make no claims to be able to give proper meaning. I'll leave that to others.  (That's why this gets complicated)

I am sorry, I am having a really hard time understanding where you are trying to take me.  We seem to be branching out and speaking past each other, so let me simplify how I see this discussion, and you can clarify any misunderstandings I might be having.

In layman's terms, this is the discussion we seem to be having (in my mind):

Me: Here is an apparent conflict in the scriptures that I am having trouble resolving, can anyone help?

You:  There is no conflict, you are ignoring the art/science(?) of interpreting.

Me: Ok... that is pretty vague. What are the proper interpretations so that I can resolve this conflict in my mind?

You:  I don't claim to know, but I am sure that someone out there has the answer.  But be warned that there are too many interpretations out there, and no good way to weed through them. 

Me:  Ok, thanks...but that just is not very helpful and in no way demonstrates your claim that there is no conflict. 

I don’t mean to be rude, but I don’t know what you expect me to take away from this that can be helpful to me, or how you can claim that there are no conflicts because of the art/science(?) of interpreting.  That is an unsubstantiated claim. 

 

 

Edited April 13, 2018 by pogi

[MormonMason]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm curious, if you had no belief in God at the time, why would you think it was God speaking?  I'm sure many atheists experience voices and ideas and don't consider these things evidence for God, what was it that caused you to interpret it that way?

What finally convinced me it might have been God?  When the voice called me by name and then said, "I am the Lord your God."  Kind of shakes things up a little bit.  It was very different from mere flashes of insight or ideas.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I am sorry, I am having a really hard time understanding where you are trying to take me.  We seem to be branching out and speaking past each other, so let me simplify how I see this discussion, and you can clarify any misunderstandings I might be having.

In practical terms it means that there are multiple ways to read the same passage all of which are authoritative. Simple claim. So the appeal to authority ends up being less helpful than it may appear at first glance.

If you want to get into discussing particular passages I'm all game but you'd indicated in your other thread you didn't want to do that. My only real point is that the "obvious" reading is often more complicated than it appears. There simply isn't just one defensible reading.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

We're all delusional to a certain extent, in that we all don't know what we don't know. I wasn't trying to be rude or anything.  

And I'm sure that I'm missing out on some things in life, as are you, we all are.  My whole goal in life is to keep plugging along, learning and growing and experiencing.  I have no malice towards you or anyone else.  I'm a Mormon, not a conventional one though, and I appreciate the conversation.  

Don't worry. I did not take it as rude. A lot of people think I am delusional. If I shared the experiences of my life with more people a lot more would think I was delusional. I do not blame them for thinking that nor do I think there is malice there and, were circumstances different, would probably believe I was delusional too.

[pogi]

On 4/13/2018 at 6:22 PM, clarkgoble said:

In practical terms it means that there are multiple ways to read the same passage all of which are authoritative. Simple claim. So the appeal to authority ends up being less helpful than it may appear at first glance.

If you want to get into discussing particular passages I'm all game but you'd indicated in your other thread you didn't want to do that. My only real point is that the "obvious" reading is often more complicated than it appears. There simply isn't just one defensible reading.

I have read back through some of our interactions, and can see more clearly now where there has been some misunderstanding on both sides.  For example, I don't disagree with your "only real point".  I think I have largely been misunderstood on that.  I am very open and hopeful to find an interpretation to settle this apparent conflict in my mind.  That was the point of this thread, to find new ways to look at things.  The interpretation that I have right now is not working for me, and I am looking for a new way to look at these passages.  

As it stands right now, I don't view Paul's writings in the OP as inspired by God (as seems to be your position as well, from previous statements that you have made).  But by holding that position, I run into conflict with my current understanding of Articles of Faith 1:8, which makes me uncomfortable.  To complicate the matter further, we have accepted all scripture as authoritative canon (aka measuring rod) by the law of common consent.  Which, to me, seems problematic if not all passages are inspired, and are potentially damaging messages.  So my purpose is simply to state, "what am I missing here"?  I am not insisting that my interpretation is the right one, I am asking for clarity. 

A couple questions I need to help clear things up for me from your side of things:

1) Just to clarify, when you state that "there are multiple ways to read the same passage all of which are authoritative", you are not suggesting any and all interpretations of passages are authoritative, are you?  Only some, correct?

2) Do you believe that all passages have multiple authoritative meanings, or only some?  For example, I can see how some passages were given with the intended purpose of providing layers of meaning; but in other passages, it seems that the author had only one intended purpose and meaning in mind.

3) What makes one reading authoritative and not another?

4) What do you mean by "authoritative"?  Authority for what?

5) How are the scriptures endowed with this authority, or who gives them this authority from your perspective - the individual, the church, God, all of the above, none of the above, some of the above?

6) Do you personally believe that all passages are inspired by God? 

Edited April 15, 2018 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

Parts of Paul's letter could be inspired while parts are not while it could be inspired to include the whole letter. I don't see how that conflicts with the article of faith.

Effectively you're restating your question as how can a measuring rod be a measuring rod if it's not infallible. While I understand that criticism and am sympathetic, the reality is that we often use fallible devices as rulers. Once you accept scripture as inspired and fallible I think the problems go away. The issue is that people want epistemic surety which the gospel just doesn't give.

To your other questions:

Quote

Just to clarify, when you state that "there are multiple ways to read the same passage all of which are authoritative", you are not suggesting any and all interpretations of passages are authoritative, are you?  Only some, correct?

Correct seems difficult to define in this context. Let's say some are justifiable and others are not. As for authority, I don't think scripture alone is or can be authoritative. You always need the spirit. In that sense scripture as measuring rod falls short as a metaphor. I prefer to think of it as more of a catalyst. If folks had a background in chemistry there are some really good analogies there where to measure something you need a catalyst as part of the process.

Quote

Do you believe that all passages have multiple authoritative meanings, or only some?  For example, I can see how some passages were given with the intended purpose of providing layers of meaning; but in other passages, it seems that the author had only one intended purpose and meaning in mind.

All. I have no problem with the spirit leading a prophet to read a passage in a fashion the original author might not recognize. That is what one might broadly call a deconstructive reading. Elder Oaks has a great talk on this I don't have time to look up. Take the authority of James 1:6 - the authoritative directive when Joseph read it was for him right there and then to go into the grove and pray. So authority and meaning can lead to the proper reading at a given time to be tied much more to the consequences of that reading.

We're all biased towards a reading that would be what everyone understood what the statement was uttered. However scripture is never written by a single person. First off most of the Bible is heavily edited and redacted, particularly the Old Testament. But even in the New Testament you have secretaries and scribes not to mention issues during transmission. You have references and quotations put into a text with their functions not being fully controlled by the new author/scribe. You also have the function of their place in canon and what that does to the original texts. The very placing of a text into canon is itself a type of quoting, just as much as when Paul quotes some Old Testament or Stoic passage. And as I'm sure you're aware quotation is linguistically a very odd function since you don't control the meaning of the quoted text.

Quote

What makes one reading authoritative and not another?

In practice? The authority of those making the reading. In theory, I think it's whatever God wants it to mean at that time. 

Quote

 

What do you mean by "authoritative"?  Authority for what?

 

I'd say in practice authoritative for the Church. However theologians might stress some ideal authority to get around say how Brigham Young and others read passages in light of southern racist interpretations of Genesis - particularly the Canaanites. Were those readings authoritative? Practically they were since everyone treated them as authoritative. However now, looking back, we say they were mistaken. (I'd say they were hard to justify in terms of the text too - but that's in a certain sense a separate issue)

As for the "for what" I'd say for the running of the Church and what we should do and believe. However I think accepting that humans are fallible requires recognizing fallibility towards authority from readings. The danger is of course that people will then see that gap and run with it as I think the theologically liberally inclined do. Although they'd point to say blacks as justifying their actions. Because there's always a chance of error, there's no way to use scripture to settle things, which is what I think you want. My answer would be the old idea of a three legged stool made up of scripture, contemporary prophets, and personal revelation. (I'd perhaps add in science/history as a fourth one but that's not typically the way it's presented) 

To me authority is always simultaneously tied with risk. Many people think that authority should downplay risk and personal responsibility in terms of ignorance. Personal responsibility should always be in terms of the absolutely known and either obeying nor disobeying. But I just view that view as wrong.

Quote

How are the scriptures endowed with this authority, or who gives them this authority from your perspective - the individual, the church, God, all of the above, none of the above, some of the above?

Getting back to that three legged stool we can analyze authority in terms of each. Inherent scriptural authority is much more what I'd call likely readings. But in practice scripture has authority only because people give it authority. So what matters is the authority we personally give it and the authority our leaders give it.

Quote

Do you personally believe that all passages are inspired by God? 

In what sense? I'm not trying to weasel out. This is actually an important deal. If God inspires a text to be put in canon that is highly flawed because of the value and inspiration of parts, isn't the whole inspired in some sense? Inspiration thus isn't a black and white issue. Further we then have the issue of texts that have been declared uninspired like Song of Solomon, yet quoted in many places like D&C 109:73. So how do we treat it? 

All I'm suggesting is that authority is complicated.

 

[FormerLDS]

On 4/12/2018 at 3:53 PM, pogi said:

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. 

What then is your standard of truth?  Is truth limited to only that which makes logical sense to an individual, majority opinion or science?  

Thomas Jefferson, one of our Nation's founding fathers, was devoted to the teachings of Jesus Christ, but there were certain passages in the gospels which he disagreed.  Jefferson took a Bible in one hand and a sharp knife in the other hand and proceeded to cut out everything which he disagreed.  If he didn't like it, or something didn't quite make sense to him for whatever reason, he simply cut it out.   Jefferson created his own version of Christ's philosophy and published his work entitled "The life and moral of Jesus of Nazareth".

If truth were subjective, then Thomas Jefferson had the right to make truth whatever he wanted it to be and his version of truth would only be applicable to him. 

If truth is subjective then there are no moral absolutes and people like Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany are completely justified in killing millions of people.

If truth is subjective then you can choose what you think is authoritative and inspired by the mind and will of God. 

Obviously, truth is objective and morality therefore must also be objective. 

If there is a God and He did make this world, then HE has the right to choose what is right and what is wrong and, while you and I and Thomas Jefferson are free to choose what we can and cannot believe, our beliefs do not change - or even effect - the truth.

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

What then is your standard of truth?  Is truth limited to only that which makes logical sense to an individual, majority opinion or science?  

I view the scriptures and the words of the prophets as a map.  A map is useless without a compass or a second point of reference.  The Holy Spirit is that second point of reference.  But it is more then a compass.  When used properly, it can also direct us through any inadvertent mistakes that may have been recorded on the map. 

The scriptures are useless without a second point of reference.  People can interpret them however they want to justify all sorts of falsehood.  The standard of truth is the spirit of truth. Only through the spirit of truth can we discern direction in the scriptures.  Even the scriptures themselves point to this truth.  Only those who have spiritual ears to hear and eyes to see, can properly understand the words of the scriptures in their hearts.  It is a a progressive learning process, as it was for the apostles. 

[FormerLDS]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I view the scriptures and the words of the prophets as a map.  A map is useless without a compass or a second point of reference.  The Holy Spirit is that second point of reference.  But it is more then a compass.  When used properly, it can also direct us through any inadvertent mistakes that may have been recorded on the map. 

The scriptures are useless without a second point of reference.  People can interpret them however they want to justify all sorts of falsehood.  The standard of truth is the spirit of truth. Only through the spirit of truth can we discern direction in the scriptures.  Even the scriptures themselves point to this truth.  Only those who have spiritual ears to hear and eyes to see, can properly understand the words of the scriptures in their hearts.  It is a a progressive learning process, as it was for the apostles. 

Does it bother you at all that what you interpret to be the "Holy Spirit" desires that you doubt the Word of God?

If you have such special insight into what God really meant, why don't you follow Joseph Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and the many, many other skeptics, atheists and unbelievers through the ages who also chose not to believe the Bible and create your own "Pogi version" of the Bible?

Just because you view something doesn't make it true.  Any "spirit" that causes you to doubt the written Word of God is not the Holy Spirit friends.  

[pogi]

18 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Parts of Paul's letter could be inspired while parts are not while it could be inspired to include the whole letter. I don't see how that conflicts with the article of faith.

Thanks for your response.  It really helps me better understand your approach.  I agree with most of what you say, but am grappling with how this is supposed to play out in practice.  

I am not dismissing your entire post by only quoting the above portion, but I do want to address this part, as it seems this is where we are looking at the issue differently. 

Let me explain how I see it conflicting with articles of faith 8.  If parts of Paul's letters are uninspired, then those are Paul's words and not God's.  If they (as you argue) were not inspired by God, but subsequently inspired to be included in the canon, then it would be more correct for AoF to read like this:  We believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God and uninspired word of man, all of which was inspired to be included in the canon.  However, if God inspired for these uninspired words to be included in the canon, does that mean he is authorizing them as authoritative in determining doctrine and practice in the church as part of the canon?  If he is authorizing them by including them in the canon, then it is the same as if it came out of his mouth.  So, yes, this could potentially justify articles of faith 1:8.  But... that just creates a whole new can of worms.

Lets say that Paul's intended meaning is the obvious reading - Women can't teach or ask questions in church etc.   If God himself has authorized these words, and we (including the prophets) have accepted them by covenant and common consent, then barring a prophetic "deconstructive reading" (which we don't have), it creates obvious potential issues and questions as to what is authoritative in determining doctrine/practice and what is not.  If we accept that God inspired them to be included, then they carry significant weight and cannot simply be discarded as uninspired and authoritative in determining practice and doctrine.  So the big question is, what is the authoritative reading?  I have never seen any prophetic comments on those verses. 

The big question is this, how does this play out in practice?  Here is a hypothetical:

Let's say a bishop, after reading Paul's letters is "inspired" to refuse women from speaking in church, based on the obvious interpretation. Baring an authoritative and prophetic deconstructive reading of these verses (which I have never seen), what ground does the Stake President and high council have for disciplining this bishop?

The Bishop's position is scriptural, plus he has the consistent words (if not practice) of the brethren in defending his position:

Quote

 

Harold B. Lee:

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion.  The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church.  And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard  Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth. (The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, Reports and Discourses, p.69)

Joseph Fielding Smith:

The standard works are scripture. They are binding upon us. They are the mind and will and voice of the Lord. He never has, he does not now, and he never will reveal anything which is contrary to what is in them. 

Bruce R. McConkie:

Men who wear the prophetic mantle are still men; they have their own views; and their understanding of gospel truths is dependent upon the study and inspiration that is theirs. Some prophets—I say it respectfully—know more and have greater inspiration than others. Thus, if Brigham Young, who was one of the greatest of the prophets, said something about Adam which is out of harmony with what is in the Book of Moses and in section 78, it is the scripture that prevails. This is one of the reasons we call our scriptures The Standard Works. They are the standard of judgment and the measuring rod against which all doctrines and views are weighed, and it does not make one particle of difference whose views are involved. The scriptures always take precedence. ("Finding Answers to Gospel Questions," Letter dated 1 July 1980. Published in Teaching Seminary Preservice Readings, Religion 370, 471, and 475 (2004))

President Gordon B. Hinckley:

“‘The Standard Works’ … are the reservoir of our doctrine from which flows the waters of gospel light. They provide the standard by which all gospel doctrine is measured. All other [materials] should spring from the word of the Lord as set forth in these volumes” (“Cornerstones of Responsibility” [regional representatives’ seminar, 5 Apr. 1991], 2).

Now, to use your 3 legged stool analogy.  The bishop has all 3 legs to stand on.  He claims 1) inspiration 2) scriptural mandate, and 3) prophetic justification to ignore any teachings/practices/doctrines which are unbiblical and have no revelatory backing.  The Standard works trump (acording to the prophets) except when a new revelation replaces or clarifies old scripture.  I have never seen any new revelation which clarifies Paul's writings on the roles in the church.

What leg does the Stake Presidency and high council have to stand on.  They can claim inspiration only.  They have no revelation to stand on, and the words of canon contradict long standing practice.  There is the precedence of practice, but that is not one of the 3 legs that you mentioned.  

In this scenario, it seems that the bishop has the authoritative high ground. 

Edited April 16, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

1 hour ago, FormerLDS said:

Does it bother you at all that what you interpret to be the "Holy Spirit" desires that you doubt the Word of God?

This presupposes that all of the words in the Bible are the inspired word of God.

[clarkgoble]

Let me say that most of what I point out is just inherent to the nature of texts - particularly textual functions like quotation and the nature of authorship. As soon as you have multiple authors figuring out intent becomes deeply problematic especially when one author is quoting an other. If you have competing intents, who wins out? 

Quote

If parts of Paul's letters are uninspired, then those are Paul's words and not God's.

Again I think you're taking authorship and inspiration to be absolutes. Whereas my point is that this isn't the case. Secondly you're neglecting the issue of time. Something may be inspired for a particular place and time but not an other. What you end up arguing for is that the Articles of Faith entails all inspiration to be timeless and universal in application. I've brought that up before relative to Noah.

Consider the following thought experiment. God sees it as useful some statements of Paul that Paul came up with on his own. God had given some vague inspiration on the matter but not the particulars. This applies to the situation in Roman occupied Jewish settlements particularly in Asia Minor but only for 100 years. This is part of an epistle that had other matters that were inspired and were useful for a broader time frame. They get compiled into the Bible. Now is the Pauline part about those Asia minor congregations inspired or not?

It seems it's inspired but not necessarily universal. That's why it's important to distinguish between universality.

So I think you need to carefully unpack what you mean by inspired because I think that's where the problems are arising. Particularly the relationship between inspiration and universal application. I think you also have to ask yourself whether God can inspire in a vague way or if inspiration is always total such that the exact words are God's. To draw an example, I can think of blessings I've given that were inspired but I'd never say for any blessing that every word came from God as if he dictated it.

 

37 minutes ago, pogi said:

However, if God inspired for these uninspired words to be included in the canon, does that mean he is authorizing them as authoritative in determining doctrine and practice in the church as part of the canon?  If he is authorizing them by including them in the canon, then it is the same as if it came out of his mouth.  So, yes, this could potentially justify articles of faith 1:8.  But... that just creates a whole new can of worms.

That's what I reject. Particularly the "as if it came out of his mouth" part.  I don't see how on earth you get that from the very, very vague AoF 8.

37 minutes ago, pogi said:

Let's say a bishop, after reading Paul's letters is "inspired" to refuse women from speaking in church, based on the obvious interpretation. Baring an authoritative and prophetic deconstructive reading of these verses (which I have never seen), what ground does the Stake President and high council have for disciplining this bishop?

The Bishop's position is scriptural, plus he has the consistent words (if not practice) of the brethren in defending his position:

Now, to use your 3 legged stool analogy.  The bishop has all 3 legs to stand on.  He claims 1) inspiration 2) scriptural mandate, and 3) prophetic justification to ignore any teachings/practices/doctrines which are unbiblical and have no revelatory backing.  The Standard works trum (acording to the prophets) except when a new revelation replaces or clarifies old scripture.  I have never seen any new revelation which clarifies Paul's writtings on the roles in the church.

What leg does the Stake Presidency and high council have to stand on.  They can claim inspiration only.  They have no revelation to stand on, and the words of canon contradict long standing practice.  There is the precedence of practice, but that is not one of the 3 legs that you mentioned.  

In this scenario, it seems that the bishop has the authoritative high ground. 

Well except the brethren have contradicted this interpretation by having women speak in church. So I don't see how you could say the Bishop has all three legs. I'd say he's missing two - the brethren and personal revelation.

As for what ground the Stake President would have for disciplining the Bishop, that's due to his priesthood keys.

BTW - you make an odd distinction between inspiration and revelation in the above. Could you explain your use since I use them as synonyms.

Edited April 16, 2018 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Again I think you're taking authorship and inspiration to be absolutes. Whereas my point is that this isn't the case. Secondly you're neglecting the issue of time. Something may be inspired for a particular place and time but not an other. What you end up arguing for is that the Articles of Faith entails all inspiration to be timeless and universal in application. I've brought that up before relative to Noah.

Consider the following thought experiment. God sees it as useful some statements of Paul that Paul came up with on his own. God had given some vague inspiration on the matter but not the particulars. This applies to the situation in Roman occupied Jewish settlements particularly in Asia Minor but only for 100 years. This is part of an epistle that had other matters that were inspired and were useful for a broader time frame. They get compiled into the Bible. Now is the Pauline part about those Asia minor congregations inspired or not?

It seems it's inspired but not necessarily universal. That's why it's important to distinguish between universality.

So I think you need to carefully unpack what you mean by inspired because I think that's where the problems are arising. Particularly the relationship between inspiration and universal application. I think you also have to ask yourself whether God can inspire in a vague way or if inspiration is always total such that the exact words are God's. To draw an example, I can think of blessings I've given that were inspired but I'd never say for any blessing that every word came from God as if he dictated it.

I don't think any of the above addresses what I said.  What I said was this:

Quote

If parts of Paul's letters are uninspired [as is your position], then those are Paul's words and not God's.

This is a conditional, if-then, statement.  I don't see any way around it.  If they are the uninspired ideas of men, then they are not God's words or ideas for women now, or then.

Unless you are arguing that God didn't want the women to speak in Paul's time (which really doesn't make any sense), I don't see the purpose of bringing up time. 

As far as my meaning of inspiration.  I believe ideas are inspired, I don't think inspiration/revelation comes verbatim very often (not arguing that it can't).  Paul's writings seem uninspired to me, for any time - by ifollowing the obvious reading.

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That's what I reject. Particularly the "as if it came out of his mouth" part.  I don't see how on earth you get that from the very, very vague AoF 8.

I don't get that from AoF 8.  Perhaps I am not speaking clearly.  Your argument was that some of Paul's writings may not be inspired while others are.  You then made the argument that maybe both the uninspired and inspired words were inspired to be included in the canon.  I am responding to that argument by saying, if God inspires entire letters (even with uninspired portions) to be included in his canon, then God is thereby authorizing the entire letter (even the uninspired portion).  And further yet, the entire church is giving authority to the entire letter through common consent.  That seems problematic.  

I can understand your fallibility position on authority, but if God inspired it to be used in canon, that is hard to argue as being a fallible use of authority.

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Well except the brethren have contradicted this interpretation by having women speak in church. So I don't see how you could say the Bishop has all three legs. I'd say he's missing two - the brethren and personal revelation.

As for what ground the Stake President would have for disciplining the Bishop, that's due to his priesthood keys.

BTW - you make an odd distinction between inspiration and revelation in the above. Could you explain your use since I use them as synonyms.

Yes, the brethren have contradicted this interpretation in practice, but there is no canonized revelation or prophetic interpretation given to justify their practice of contradicting canon.

I also view interpretation and revelation as synonymous.  By "revelation", I was speaking of canonized revelation, that which has been approved by the first presidency, quorum of the 12 and upheld by common consent of the entire church.  Canonized revelation is more authoritative then any claimed inspiration by a stake president.  Unless the Stake president can give an authorized interpretation of those verses (which I have never seen), they cannot contradict the obvious reading by the law of common consent. 

 

Edited April 16, 2018 by pogi

[MormonMason]

Quote

I have never seen any new revelation which clarifies Paul's writings on the roles in the church.

What is the JST? What is the Doctrine and Covenants? The Doctrine and Covenants is a collection of canonized revelations.  See Section 25.

Exhorting the church is speaking and teaching in church.  Emma was a woman.

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

What is the JST? What is the Doctrine and Covenants? The Doctrine and Covenants is a collection of canonized revelations.  See Section 25.

Exhorting the church is speaking and teaching in church.  Emma was a woman.

No need to be snarky, I am just looking for answers.  But yes, this is exactly the kind of stuff I am looking for.  

Please show me a JST for all passages in the OP - CFR.

Section 25 states that Emma specifically was “ordained” (interesting use of words) under the hands of Joseph for exhorting scripture.  Were all women ordained under the hands of Joseph for that purpose?

Edited April 16, 2018 by pogi

[Eek!]

On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 5:05 PM, pogi said:

Question 1) Do we really accept everything in the Bible as the word of God...

Imo it is a huge mistake to call something "the word of God" when it is not.  For instance, the word of Paul is NOT the word of God.  The effect of this unfortunate tradition is to water down those parts of scripture which probably ARE worthy of being called "the word of God", such as the teachings of Jesus.  When the words of Paul are elevated to the same status as the words of Jesus, imo something has gone wrong. 

On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 5:05 PM, pogi said:

Finally, shouldn't the highest standard be the Holy Spirit? 

Bingo.

I used to have in my mind this hierarchy of how authoritative all these various sources were, with living prophets outranking dead prophets, and modern scripture outranking old scripture, and so forth. 

Now I think that God the Holy Spirit outranks all books and all prophets.  Combined. 

It's a long path and we will all make more mistakes than you can shake a stick at along the way, but I do not believe that our mistakes are held against us.  However I do believe that we have to actually earn our degree in order to graduate from this level to the next.   I believe that mastery of this level includes communion with the Holy Spirit, at which point any questions of which book or which prophet outranks which other book or other prophet become moot. 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Eek!

[clarkgoble]

 

Quote

If parts of Paul's letters are uninspired [as is your position], then those are Paul's words and not God's.

This is a conditional, if-then, statement.  I don't see any way around it.  If they are the uninspired ideas of men, then they are not God's words or ideas for women now, or then.

I tried to explain why that's not black or white due to the function of quotation in texts.

Let's consider a simpler case. As I mentioned earlier D&C 109:73 quotes Song of Solomon which is uninspired according to Joseph Smith. So what are we to make of the quotation in verse 73? (I'll admit this is just a metaphor so it doesn't hold a crucial role - but I'm here trying to get as the underlying semiotics rather than the particular meaning of that verse) The point is that something uninspired can be a part of something inspired making it inspired in certain senses. 

Now I'd add to that and say that the way you are thinking of texts - as ownership of words, is deeply problematic precisely due to this feature of quotation. Consider someone who quotes a physicist about black holes. The meaning of the quotation might not be understood by the person repeating it. Thus the meaning of the utterance can't be reduced to the speaker's understanding of what they say nor their intents. So to even pose the issue as who's words are they: God's or Paul's is to fundamentally miss what's going on. (I don't mean this as a criticism of you - this is a feature of texts that is typically misunderstood)

You end up in a position where you have to ask no whose words they are, but what they mean in a particular interpretation which entails what sorts of questions you ask. There's a tendency to assume texts mean what the authors intend. But I just don't think texts work that way.

All of that is a simple way of saying, it's complex not a simple black and white issue of "this is God's word." Again if God uses the text that includes stuff he inspired and stuff he didn't, doesn't that use make it God's?  However if that is true, then clearly words that belong to God don't entail he fully agrees with them. So the underlying assumption you make (it's God's words thus it's God's intents) just strikes me as fundamentally wrong.

Quote

Yes, the brethren have contradicted this interpretation in practice, but there is no canonized revelation or prophetic interpretation given to justify their practice of contradicting canon.

So what? Why is that needed?

Quote

I can understand your fallibility position on authority, but if God inspired it to be used in canon, that is hard to argue as being a fallible use of authority.

Why? I get that's your fundamental premise. I don't quite understand your reason for that premise. 

I'd say that God is first off constrained by the very nature of texts. But second, if God isn't going to intervene in a dramatic way, that means God is limited in what he can do. He's working very indirectly. Imperfection isn't a bug - it's a feature. It's inherent to a fallen world we get to live in where God's hand isn't obvious. Certainly God could just dictate things. But if there's one thing I think we're all clear on is that the scriptures rarely work that way.

Edited April 17, 2018 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

11 hours ago, Eek! said:

Imo it is a huge mistake to call something "the word of God" when it is not.  For instance, the word of Paul is NOT the word of God.  The effect of this unfortunate tradition is to water down those parts of scripture which probably ARE worthy of being called "the word of God", such as the teachings of Jesus.  When the words of Paul are elevated to the same status as the words of Jesus, imo something has gone wrong. 

Bingo.

I used to have in my mind this hierarchy of how authoritative all these various sources were, with living prophets outranking dead prophets, and modern scripture outranking old scripture, and so forth. 

Now I think that God the Holy Spirit outranks all books and all prophets.  Combined. 

It's a long path and we will all make more mistakes than you can shake a stick at along the way, but I do not believe that our mistakes are held against us.  However I do believe that we have to actually earn our degree in order to graduate from this level to the next.   I believe that mastery of this level includes communion with the Holy Spirit, at which point any questions of which book or which prophet outranks which other book or other prophet become moot. 

Thanks Eek, I always appreciate your input.

Yes, I have come to see the Holy Spirit as the ultimate authority in my life as well. But in doing so, I find myself feeling like I am on the fringes of Mormondom.  Because in rejecting Paul's words as "NOT the word of God", I grapple with one of the fundamental tenants of Mormonism - AoF 8.  

How do you approach AoF 1:8?

Do you feel restricted by the covenant of common consent, to uphold the words of Paul as canonical?

Perhaps I shouldn't feel so uncomfortable questioning an article of faith, as Joseph Smith himself rejected the idea of creeds.  He wanted the freedom to believe whatever the spirit directed him to believe without being restricted by creeds.  Ironically, I am now feeling restricted by the creeds that Joseph wrote. 

[FormerLDS]

18 hours ago, pogi said:

This presupposes that all of the words in the Bible are the inspired word of God.

This presupposes that God was not able to do something.

[pogi]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

 

I tried to explain why that's not black or white due to the function of quotation in texts.

Can you show me where these statements by Paul have been quoted elsewhere in scripture, or even used in a general conference talk, etc.?

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

 

All of that is a simple way of saying, it's complex not a simple black and white issue of "this is God's word." Again if God uses the text that includes stuff he inspired and stuff he didn't, doesn't that use make it God's?  However if that is true, then clearly words that belong to God don't entail he fully agrees with them. So the underlying assumption you make (it's God's words thus it's God's intents) just strikes me as fundamentally wrong.

Your assuming that the inclusion of those versus in the Bible was inspired by God.  I don't see where God "uses" those versus in our church anywhere.

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

 

So what? Why is that needed?

Because of how the church professes to use the standard works as a rod to measure all of our practices against.

Quote

And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works (I think that is why we call them "standard"—it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it. ("Place of the Living Prophet, Seer and Revelator," Stand in Holy Places, (1974), p.162-163; originally delivered on 8 July 1964)

 

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

 

So to even pose the issue as who's words are they: God's or Paul's is to fundamentally miss what's going on. (I don't mean this as a criticism of you - this is a feature of texts that is typically misunderstood)

I am missing something by asking what is inspired and what is not?  What are the words of Brigham Young,  and what are the words of God?  To ask such a question is missing what is going on?   On the contrary, I think to not ask the question is missing what is going on.  I don't care who quotes Brigham Young and his racist ideas...quoting him doesn't make his words/meaning more inspired (even if they are taken out of context or hermeneutically rendered/twisted to be more acceptable).  

Edited April 17, 2018 by pogi