General Conferences and Hermeneutics

[Navidad]

This thread may be a bit strange at first glance. I have basically combined two questions I have. One is about so much and one is about so little. Since starting to attend a LDS ward for all Sunday services a year or so ago I have been surprised at the great significance given to General Conferences. I have read the Shepherd brother's wonderful work on the changing General Conference topics ever since the first one. Before attending the ward I read many General Conference talks; including some that got left out of the archives because the then President didn't approve. But, I was totally unprepared for the emotional attachment to the talks given at GC's. If I had tracked all Sacrament Meetings, all Sunday School Classes, and all Elder's Quorums I have attended, it would show a huge preponderance of teachings from GC's (I am tired of writing out General Conference) talks. More than the Bible or any of the three other LDS scriptures, we are taught from the GC talks. Testimonies invariably stem from GC talks. Sunday School lessons start out in Isaiah and end up in GC talks. Is this typical? The hushed tones and tears with which Elder Uchtdorf's talks are recounted (he seems to be the current favorite, next to President Nelson, of course) surprises me. The principal teaching mechanism in our ward seems to be GC talks. Is this unusual or usual for an LDS ward? Do the apostles have speech writers? I seem to remember one of them saying he makes 40 drafts of his talks. Are they given topics, or do they come up with their own. In 1932 Elder Richards got his talk stricken from the record for saying some progressive things about the Word of Wisdom. Is that common (having a talk stricken from the record)? Anything else you can add about the GC in LDS culture would help me, especially since one is coming up. I would say they remind me of early church councils, without the debates or the no votes, but I think that would upset folks, so no I didn't say that.

My second point is that after this year I am somewhat surprised at the use of isolated Scripture verses (in all four) to make a point, stretch a point, or prove a point. As a young man, we called that "Scripture twisting." Does the "average in the pew Saint," or teacher get any training in Scripture interpretation (hermeneutics)? One verse comes out of nowhere and a doctrine is the result. I notice this especially in our Old Testament lessons. Is there no real training in the LDS church in Scriptural interpretation. This may sound like a criticism, and maybe it is, but it seems that someone somewhere else in a big building is creating the lessons and the teachers are simply restating what's in the little notes you can click on. Isaiah mentions a few verses about the ground and voila, we have a prediction of the Book of Mormon. Forget the context of Babylon Captivity, unfaithfulness, and the very metaphorical nature of most of Isaiah - we move right to either another validation of things Mormon without paying any attention to the Hebrew language, the 7th and 8th century BC context, etc. etc. I am somewhat disappointed in the lack of evidence of training in the Scriptures (all four). So, one question is about how much there is; and one is about how little there seems to be. I mean neither as a criticism; I am simply seeking to understand.

[Storm Rider]

Hello Navidad, I always appreciate your questions. I am a Gospel Doctrine teacher and I can only speak or respond to your questions based on how I teach and my co-teacher teaches. As you already stated, we are teaching the Old Testament this year. Neither one of us, in my memory, have used a GC talk to teach our lessons. That does not mean we haven't, just that I cannot remember doing it or hearing in our ward. My co-teacher likes to provide a great deal of background on the particular book of scripture, the prophet, etc. He does a great deal of research in theology and comes up with a wide range of comments not found in the lesson manual. I tend to take the lesson, study the scriptures being used and then focus on what I feel is most important and what I feel led to encourage conversation during the class.

I think GC talks are far more often the source of teaching material for RS/EQ lessons. We firmly believe that these individuals are apostles and prophets in every sense of the ancient prophets. Assume that is true - should we listen and study their words or should we continue to focus on those that have been dead of millennia? 

Personally, I never take the word of a current apostle or prophet as the word of God. If there is something doctrinal declared in GC it will be added to the D&C; if not, it won't.  

[Jane_Doe]

Going through hour by hour of church (in a funky order)

2nd hour: Gospel Doctrine is on scripture study.  Not GC.  If you're ward is truly stressing that more than OT this year... something is way off.  Other classes do specialized topics.

3rd hour: This year the topic is 2/4 Sundays going over a GC talk that the local leaders feel is particularly relevant, so that makes sense to hear GC those week.  The other 2/4 of the Sundays could touch on a GC topic, but not necessarily.  Jus depends on your local needs / leadership choices.

1st hour: Sacrament talks can be on anything.  One style of assigning talk topics is simply that-- assign the topic.  Another style is to give them a GC talk to base things on-- a strategy I personally find lesser in almost every way, but it's a tempting easy way of doing things for some.  

 

Addressing some of your specific comments---

"Testimonies invariably stem from GC talks." --- ??? That is WIERD.  In my experience (dozens of wards in a dozen states) the most common points of origin for a testimony talk is 1) a special experience recently in their life prompting this outpouring, or 2) there are those people who regularly get up and give that pretty similar talk every time.

"Sunday School lessons start out in Isaiah and end up in GC talks. Is this typical?"  No.  It's not supposed to be that way at all actually.  Yes, the topic may wander to some today-application (that's fine), but ending up on GC every week?  No.

" The hushed tones and tears with which Elder Uchtdorf's talks are recounted (he seems to be the current favorite, next to President Nelson, of course) surprises me" -- Ok, Uchtdorf being a favorite is very normal.  Another favorite is Holland.   Crying at anything is pretty normal too (I have no idea how that cultural aspect came to US LDS...).

" Do the apostles have speech writers?"  -- No, everything is self written.

"Are they given topics, or do they come up with their own." --     >99% of the time GC talk are self selected topics.  The only exception to this I can recall off the top of my head was this last GC, when some folks were assigned to talk on ministering during the "We're switching from HT/VT to ministering" session and stuff like that.  Even then, "ministering" is a giant topic and you can go many places with it.

" In 1932 Elder Richards got his talk stricken from the record for saying some progressive things about the Word of Wisdom. Is that common (having a talk stricken from the record)?" -- Extremely rare.  Sometimes (<3%) of the time the speaker will choose to edit their words between the initially spoken to final printed draft, but those are wording tweeks.

"Anything else you can add about the GC in LDS culture would help me, especially since one is coming up." --- Have people explained substaining to you?

"I would say they remind me of early church councils, without the debates or the no votes, but I think that would upset folks, so no I didn't say that." - Since you included the 'no debates and no votes part', I don't think you'd get people upset about that comment.  It's the debates and voting that LDS folks have a problem with.

"My second point is that after this year I am somewhat surprised at the use of isolated Scripture verses (in all four) to make a point, stretch a point, or prove a point"  -- Your ward is very weird in how they are doing things.

"Does the "average in the pew Saint," or teacher get any training in Scripture interpretation (hermeneutics)?"  -- Depends on what you mean by 'training' here, would you mind elaborating?  For LDS, the big point of scripture reading and understanding is about listening to the Spirit.  Not formal philosophy.  

 

 

"someone somewhere else in a big building is creating the lessons and the teachers are simply restating what's in the little notes you can click on."   -- Your ward sounds like it has very low quality teachers.  Which sadly, is not terribly uncommon.  The institution teachers councils (starting last year) and the new manuals (starting next year) are efforts to strive to improve the quality.  You were NEVER supposed to just read stuff to people.  Sadly, I find that in a ward's local culture people can get stuck in a rut.  Like in my parent's ward, thier GD teacher is... just dreadful in every way related to teaching style/tone/atmosphere/etc.  And the class is just dead there.  

In contrast, my ward has continual lively discussions about things, with good questions and perspectives and never go the beaten track.  For example, one of the GD teachers is an expert in game birds, so every lesson he teaches things start super zooms into bird imagery, the culture around the bird being mentioned, etc.  It's a different take/focus/info to the rest of us that aren't game bird experts.  The other teachers have other individual flavors.

Edited October 2, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[mrmarklin]

After being a teacher in various capacities over the years, I’m not a fan of using GC talks as a teaching tool for teachers in the Church.  While they may be inspiring in a live setting, many times they are doctrinally unsound or inconsistent. 

Recently gave a lesson  where the GA pointed out all the feel good Facebook postings by “friends” could make one feel badly about one’s own personal situation and lead to discouragement.  Message was to avoid these sorts of social media. 

Convenietly forgotten was the Church’s monthly publication full of similar member feel good stories. 

The other gripe I have is many times speakers, upon being assigned a lesson or talk from GC, essentially read the speech, adding very little extra inspiration or content. 

I think recommending these speeches as teaching tools smacks of laziness and budget cutting at Church HQ.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

After being a teacher in various capacities over the years, I’m not a fan of using GC talks as a teaching tool for teachers in the Church.  While they may be inspiring in a live setting, many times they are doctrinally unsound or inconsistent. 

Recently gave a lesson  where the GA pointed out all the feel good Facebook postings by “friends” could make one feel badly about one’s own personal situation and lead to discouragement.  Message was to avoid these sorts of social media. 

Convenietly forgotten was the Church’s monthly publication full of similar member feel good stories. 

The other gripe I have is many times speakers, upon being assigned a lesson or talk from GC, essentially read the speech, adding very little extra inspiration or content. 

I think recommending these speeches as teaching tools smacks of laziness and budget cutting at Church HQ.

I guess CFR - can you give an example in the last 5 years of GC talks where a talk was not doctrinally sound or was not consistent with doctrine?

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

This thread may be a bit strange at first glance. I have basically combined two questions I have. One is about so much and one is about so little. Since starting to attend a LDS ward for all Sunday services a year or so ago I have been surprised at the great significance given to General Conferences. I have read the Shepherd brother's wonderful work on the changing General Conference topics ever since the first one. Before attending the ward I read many General Conference talks; including some that got left out of the archives because the then President didn't approve. But, I was totally unprepared for the emotional attachment to the talks given at GC's. If I had tracked all Sacrament Meetings, all Sunday School Classes, and all Elder's Quorums I have attended, it would show a huge preponderance of teachings from GC's (I am tired of writing out General Conference) talks. More than the Bible or any of the three other LDS scriptures, we are taught from the GC talks. Testimonies invariably stem from GC talks. Sunday School lessons start out in Isaiah and end up in GC talks. Is this typical? The hushed tones and tears with which Elder Uchtdorf's talks are recounted (he seems to be the current favorite, next to President Nelson, of course) surprises me. The principal teaching mechanism in our ward seems to be GC talks. Is this unusual or usual for an LDS ward? Do the apostles have speech writers? I seem to remember one of them saying he makes 40 drafts of his talks. Are they given topics, or do they come up with their own. In 1932 Elder Richards got his talk stricken from the record for saying some progressive things about the Word of Wisdom. Is that common (having a talk stricken from the record)? Anything else you can add about the GC in LDS culture would help me, especially since one is coming up. I would say they remind me of early church councils, without the debates or the no votes, but I think that would upset folks, so no I didn't say that.

Felicitations, Navidad !!  Since Mormons believe in living prophets and prophecy (in the full meaning of the word), they naturally emphasize the Conference talks of the Brethren.  They sometimes see little difference between ancient and modern Scripture.  The talks of the Brethren have the advantage of relating directly to our own time and culture, whereas ancient Scripture usually needs to be placed in an ancient and unfamiliar context.  Since the Brethren are not assigned topics, but create their talks as they are moved by the Holy Spirit, one can sometimes find a talk here or there which is out of harmony with the message which the chief prophet desires to be made central.  That chief prophet has the capacity and authority to demand compliance with his policies.  On rare occasions that means quashing views not in keeping with his inspired leadership. In that sense, he is something like the pope.

Quote

My second point is that after this year I am somewhat surprised at the use of isolated Scripture verses (in all four) to make a point, stretch a point, or prove a point. As a young man, we called that "Scripture twisting." Does the "average in the pew Saint," or teacher get any training in Scripture interpretation (hermeneutics)? One verse comes out of nowhere and a doctrine is the result. I notice this especially in our Old Testament lessons. Is there no real training in the LDS church in Scriptural interpretation. This may sound like a criticism, and maybe it is, but it seems that someone somewhere else in a big building is creating the lessons and the teachers are simply restating what's in the little notes you can click on. Isaiah mentions a few verses about the ground and voila, we have a prediction of the Book of Mormon. Forget the context of Babylon Captivity, unfaithfulness, and the very metaphorical nature of most of Isaiah - we move right to either another validation of things Mormon without paying any attention to the Hebrew language, the 7th and 8th century BC context, etc. etc. I am somewhat disappointed in the lack of evidence of training in the Scriptures (all four). So, one question is about how much there is; and one is about how little there seems to be. I mean neither as a criticism; I am simply seeking to understand.

Mormons emphasize (1) the interpretation of Scripture through direct witness of the Holy Spirit, but also (2) via historical context.  Mormons are not generally trained in hermeneutics, and are unfamiliar with the word.  Mormons do not generally undergo theological training of any kind, even in LDS Church schools.  Some Mormons choose to obtain secular training in such academic disciplines, but the Brethren look askance at such endeavors -- the results have not always been admirable.

Your own comments on the interpretation of Isaiah indicates your lack of familiarity with multiple interpretations of single prophecies.  Jewish scholars, for example, have found that the NT Christian application of the Suffering Servant Songs in Isaiah matches the Jewish Essene Messianic interpretation.  In other words, as your own impression shows us, there is considerable lack of familiarity with the actual data among well-educated Mormons -- the mistakes made being truly horrendous.  Perhaps better for Mormons to eschew hermeneutics entirely until they are prepared to go whole hog.

Edited October 2, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

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

Recently gave a lesson  where the GA pointed out all the feel good Facebook postings by “friends” could make one feel badly about one’s own personal situation and lead to discouragement.  Message was to avoid these sorts of social media. ......................

If you are referring to the talk by Apostle David Bednar, you drew false messages from that talk.  https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2014-08-1040-social-media-guidelines?lang=eng .  Could you restate what he said accurately, please?!

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

After being a teacher in various capacities over the years, I’m not a fan of using GC talks as a teaching tool for teachers in the Church.  While they may be inspiring in a live setting, many times they are doctrinally unsound or inconsistent. 

Recently gave a lesson  where the GA pointed out all the feel good Facebook postings by “friends” could make one feel badly about one’s own personal situation and lead to discouragement.  Message was to avoid these sorts of social media. 

Convenietly forgotten was the Church’s monthly publication full of similar member feel good stories. 

The other gripe I have is many times speakers, upon being assigned a lesson or talk from GC, essentially read the speech, adding very little extra inspiration or content. 

I think recommending these speeches as teaching tools smacks of laziness and budget cutting at Church HQ.

Budget cutting? Do you think they decided to keep the manuals simple because of cost? That is ridiculous.

[The Nehor]

The primary intent of the scriptures is to serve as a conduit for revelation. If the Holy Ghost uses a passage to teach Brother or Sister Jones some vital truth and the Spirit testifies to it it is not that important if that understanding squares with hermeneutics or what the author intended. These studies can be useful as an adjunct for some people but you get into trouble if you prefer secular tools over the revelations of God.

Yes, some people wrest scriptures in isolation to twist intent or justify something but that is not the Holy Ghost.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

This thread may be a bit strange at first glance. I have basically combined two questions I have. One is about so much and one is about so little. Since starting to attend a LDS ward for all Sunday services a year or so ago I have been surprised at the great significance given to General Conferences. I have read the Shepherd brother's wonderful work on the changing General Conference topics ever since the first one. Before attending the ward I read many General Conference talks; including some that got left out of the archives because the then President didn't approve. But, I was totally unprepared for the emotional attachment to the talks given at GC's. If I had tracked all Sacrament Meetings, all Sunday School Classes, and all Elder's Quorums I have attended, it would show a huge preponderance of teachings from GC's (I am tired of writing out General Conference) talks. More than the Bible or any of the three other LDS scriptures, we are taught from the GC talks. Testimonies invariably stem from GC talks. Sunday School lessons start out in Isaiah and end up in GC talks. Is this typical? The hushed tones and tears with which Elder Uchtdorf's talks are recounted (he seems to be the current favorite, next to President Nelson, of course) surprises me. The principal teaching mechanism in our ward seems to be GC talks. Is this unusual or usual for an LDS ward? Do the apostles have speech writers? I seem to remember one of them saying he makes 40 drafts of his talks. Are they given topics, or do they come up with their own. In 1932 Elder Richards got his talk stricken from the record for saying some progressive things about the Word of Wisdom. Is that common (having a talk stricken from the record)? Anything else you can add about the GC in LDS culture would help me, especially since one is coming up. I would say they remind me of early church councils, without the debates or the no votes, but I think that would upset folks, so no I didn't say that.

My second point is that after this year I am somewhat surprised at the use of isolated Scripture verses (in all four) to make a point, stretch a point, or prove a point. As a young man, we called that "Scripture twisting." Does the "average in the pew Saint," or teacher get any training in Scripture interpretation (hermeneutics)? One verse comes out of nowhere and a doctrine is the result. I notice this especially in our Old Testament lessons. Is there no real training in the LDS church in Scriptural interpretation. This may sound like a criticism, and maybe it is, but it seems that someone somewhere else in a big building is creating the lessons and the teachers are simply restating what's in the little notes you can click on. Isaiah mentions a few verses about the ground and voila, we have a prediction of the Book of Mormon. Forget the context of Babylon Captivity, unfaithfulness, and the very metaphorical nature of most of Isaiah - we move right to either another validation of things Mormon without paying any attention to the Hebrew language, the 7th and 8th century BC context, etc. etc. I am somewhat disappointed in the lack of evidence of training in the Scriptures (all four). So, one question is about how much there is; and one is about how little there seems to be. I mean neither as a criticism; I am simply seeking to understand.

1932? Really ? Once in 86 years?

 It is often said that the teachings of living prophets are more important than the teachings of dead ones.

 The only interpretation that is important is the one that each person makes for himself directed by the spirit. 

After all, scholars consider themselves "exceptional",  and why should we follow their direction in Spiritual matters?

What Spiritual Authority do they have?

Edited October 2, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mrmarklin]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If you are referring to the talk by Apostle David Bednar, you drew false messages from that talk.  https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2014-08-1040-social-media-guidelines?lang=eng .  Could you restate what he said accurately, please?!

It was not that talk. I don’t have a cite, but it was buried in a speech that was not specifically about social media.  I don’t recall whose speech it was. 

[Gray]

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

This thread may be a bit strange at first glance. I have basically combined two questions I have. One is about so much and one is about so little. Since starting to attend a LDS ward for all Sunday services a year or so ago I have been surprised at the great significance given to General Conferences. I have read the Shepherd brother's wonderful work on the changing General Conference topics ever since the first one. Before attending the ward I read many General Conference talks; including some that got left out of the archives because the then President didn't approve. But, I was totally unprepared for the emotional attachment to the talks given at GC's. If I had tracked all Sacrament Meetings, all Sunday School Classes, and all Elder's Quorums I have attended, it would show a huge preponderance of teachings from GC's (I am tired of writing out General Conference) talks. More than the Bible or any of the three other LDS scriptures, we are taught from the GC talks. Testimonies invariably stem from GC talks. Sunday School lessons start out in Isaiah and end up in GC talks. Is this typical? The hushed tones and tears with which Elder Uchtdorf's talks are recounted (he seems to be the current favorite, next to President Nelson, of course) surprises me. The principal teaching mechanism in our ward seems to be GC talks. Is this unusual or usual for an LDS ward? Do the apostles have speech writers? I seem to remember one of them saying he makes 40 drafts of his talks. Are they given topics, or do they come up with their own. In 1932 Elder Richards got his talk stricken from the record for saying some progressive things about the Word of Wisdom. Is that common (having a talk stricken from the record)? Anything else you can add about the GC in LDS culture would help me, especially since one is coming up. I would say they remind me of early church councils, without the debates or the no votes, but I think that would upset folks, so no I didn't say that.

My second point is that after this year I am somewhat surprised at the use of isolated Scripture verses (in all four) to make a point, stretch a point, or prove a point. As a young man, we called that "Scripture twisting." Does the "average in the pew Saint," or teacher get any training in Scripture interpretation (hermeneutics)? One verse comes out of nowhere and a doctrine is the result. I notice this especially in our Old Testament lessons. Is there no real training in the LDS church in Scriptural interpretation. This may sound like a criticism, and maybe it is, but it seems that someone somewhere else in a big building is creating the lessons and the teachers are simply restating what's in the little notes you can click on. Isaiah mentions a few verses about the ground and voila, we have a prediction of the Book of Mormon. Forget the context of Babylon Captivity, unfaithfulness, and the very metaphorical nature of most of Isaiah - we move right to either another validation of things Mormon without paying any attention to the Hebrew language, the 7th and 8th century BC context, etc. etc. I am somewhat disappointed in the lack of evidence of training in the Scriptures (all four). So, one question is about how much there is; and one is about how little there seems to be. I mean neither as a criticism; I am simply seeking to understand. 

I don't think there is any hermeneutical training at any level in the church. In one sense that's bad - we end up twisting the scriptures, misunderstanding the historical and literary context, and so forth. On the other hand, there's a long Christian tradition of that, starting with the New Testament.

[rpn]

We consider GC talks to be like scripture: exactly what God wants us to be working on now from the words of the prophets.   I think it has been over a year since we've been encouraged to make all sacrament talks based on conference ones.   And they are officially part of RS and Priesthood (before we did teachings of prophets, which included older stuff).

As for twisting scriptures, there aren't many in the church proportionately who engage enough in bible scholarship to recognize when the scripture doesn't fit, and our curriculum has not kept pace with current bible scholarship, which I wish we would fix.  So people continue using scriptures the way they learned them.

Edited October 2, 2018 by rpn

[Tacenda]

As to someone's comment above about no speech writers and the GC talks being self written, I've read somewhere that some do get help on their talks. 

Edited October 2, 2018 by Tacenda

[CV75]

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

This thread may be a bit strange at first glance. I have basically combined two questions I have. One is about so much and one is about so little. Since starting to attend a LDS ward for all Sunday services a year or so ago I have been surprised at the great significance given to General Conferences. I have read the Shepherd brother's wonderful work on the changing General Conference topics ever since the first one. Before attending the ward I read many General Conference talks; including some that got left out of the archives because the then President didn't approve. But, I was totally unprepared for the emotional attachment to the talks given at GC's. If I had tracked all Sacrament Meetings, all Sunday School Classes, and all Elder's Quorums I have attended, it would show a huge preponderance of teachings from GC's (I am tired of writing out General Conference) talks. More than the Bible or any of the three other LDS scriptures, we are taught from the GC talks. Testimonies invariably stem from GC talks. Sunday School lessons start out in Isaiah and end up in GC talks. Is this typical? The hushed tones and tears with which Elder Uchtdorf's talks are recounted (he seems to be the current favorite, next to President Nelson, of course) surprises me. The principal teaching mechanism in our ward seems to be GC talks. Is this unusual or usual for an LDS ward? Do the apostles have speech writers? I seem to remember one of them saying he makes 40 drafts of his talks. Are they given topics, or do they come up with their own. In 1932 Elder Richards got his talk stricken from the record for saying some progressive things about the Word of Wisdom. Is that common (having a talk stricken from the record)? Anything else you can add about the GC in LDS culture would help me, especially since one is coming up. I would say they remind me of early church councils, without the debates or the no votes, but I think that would upset folks, so no I didn't say that.

My second point is that after this year I am somewhat surprised at the use of isolated Scripture verses (in all four) to make a point, stretch a point, or prove a point. As a young man, we called that "Scripture twisting." Does the "average in the pew Saint," or teacher get any training in Scripture interpretation (hermeneutics)? One verse comes out of nowhere and a doctrine is the result. I notice this especially in our Old Testament lessons. Is there no real training in the LDS church in Scriptural interpretation. This may sound like a criticism, and maybe it is, but it seems that someone somewhere else in a big building is creating the lessons and the teachers are simply restating what's in the little notes you can click on. Isaiah mentions a few verses about the ground and voila, we have a prediction of the Book of Mormon. Forget the context of Babylon Captivity, unfaithfulness, and the very metaphorical nature of most of Isaiah - we move right to either another validation of things Mormon without paying any attention to the Hebrew language, the 7th and 8th century BC context, etc. etc. I am somewhat disappointed in the lack of evidence of training in the Scriptures (all four). So, one question is about how much there is; and one is about how little there seems to be. I mean neither as a criticism; I am simply seeking to understand.

@Jane_Doe gave a great factual response to your questions.

As to the great significance given to General Conferences and the emotional attachment to the talks and personalities, given at GC's, I would say mileage varies by location, individual and your own personal perception.

I would say General Conference is but one of the many great benefits offered by the Church, each of which works best when integrated with the others. Of necessity when learning about hem, we sometimes have to focus on understanding one at a time.  Culturally General Conference is consistent with the long-standing practice found in all dispensations: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/meetings

As far as correlation (the centralized production and dissemination of lesson materials and media) and hermeneutics, “patience, patience, patience!” You can always find a scholar if you want one, and the correlated material is a beginning reference as you branch out in your Spirit-guided search for divine knowledge, which most ideally culminates in a solid relationship with God and charitable involvement with saints of all types.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I don't think there is any hermeneutical training at any level in the church. In one sense that's bad - we end up twisting the scriptures, misunderstanding the historical and literary context, and so forth. On the other hand, there's a long Christian tradition of that, starting with the New Testament.

I often hear this claim, and it usually means that misinterpretation (eisegesis) begins with Jesus himself.  However, when we look more closely, internal NT interpretation specifically and rabbinic interpretation generally follow well-known hermeneutical rules -- and are most readily exemplified by the interpretive work at Qumran, at Alexandria, and in contemporary talmudic discourse.  Modern rabbis, as well as most Protestant and Roman Catholic pastors are specifically trained to understand and utilize such interpretive tools, and vast encyclopedic works have been created to provide immediate reference to a host of theological and hermeneutical questions and answers.  In other words, it turns out on close examination that Jesus taught classic rabbinic Judaism a la Beit Hillel, and that St Paul did likewise.  Both were Pharisaic rabbis.  To understand that is the beginning of wisdom in Scriptural interpretation.

Mormons of all sorts (including the leaders) tend to ignore all that and go directly to the Lord instead.  They are dependent upon the Holy Spirit for interpretation of the same Scripture which came via the Holy Spirit.   Mormons therefore probably do far less Scripture twisting than their apostate counterparts in other religions.  At least that is what the statistics show about better Mormon command of Scriptural resources.

[Gray]

23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I often hear this claim, and it usually means that misinterpretation (eisegesis) begins with Jesus himself.  However, when we look more closely, internal NT interpretation specifically and rabbinic interpretation generally follow well-known hermeneutical rules -- and are most readily exemplified by the interpretive work at Qumran, at Alexandria, and in contemporary talmudic discourse.  Modern rabbis, as well as most Protestant and Roman Catholic pastors are specifically trained to understand and utilize such interpretive tools, and vast encyclopedic works have been created to provide immediate reference to a host of theological and hermeneutical questions and answers.  In other words, it turns out on close examination that Jesus taught classic rabbinic Judaism a la Beit Hillel, and that St Paul did likewise.  Both were Pharisaic rabbis.  To understand that is the beginning of wisdom in Scriptural interpretation.

Mormons of all sorts (including the leaders) tend to ignore all that and go directly to the Lord instead.  They are dependent upon the Holy Spirit for interpretation of the same Scripture which came via the Holy Spirit.   Mormons therefore probably do far less Scripture twisting than their apostate counterparts in other religions.  At least that is what the statistics show about better Mormon command of Scriptural resources.

When I think of Jesus, I have in mind his teaching on divorce. Instead of his position being informed by actual teachings on divorce in  the Tanakh, he goes to the story about Adam and Eve, which doesn't have anything to do with divorce. Is there an actual hermeneutical rule at play there?

I don't say this like it's a bad thing. I think spiritual texts can serve as spring boards to new revelation, without always worrying about the intent and historical context of the text.

[Navidad]

Let me respond to several at once. First and foremost, I realize that I often write too much and say too little. About General Conferences, I really have little knowledge of them except for something that was said at this one or that one over the years. I know, thanks to the content analysis work of the Drs. Shepherd that the topics over the years have changed dramatically. I find that very interesting. I didn't know if it was very rare or not for a talk to be stricken from the record. I find that interesting because it might shed light on the culture. I specifically remember an article on Elder Richards talk for some strange reason. My brain tends to work in funny ways. He came from Mormon royalty, so I actually searched and found copies of his talk and of the official program from 1932 (I think it was). Sure enough his talk was missing. Maybe that was indeed a once upon a time kind of thing.

On the hermeneutics thing.......I want to make very clear we really enjoy our ward. The people are warm, inviting, kind, and gracious. The bishop is one of the five men I have known in my life who I believe truly is in a unique way,  a Godly man. He is so kind and gracious and so firm that he reminds me of one other bishop I have known, this one in the Mennonite Church. I have spent hours with him alone, and in small groups roaming our mountains in search of hidden Mormon history locations; he is a wonderful Godly man. Our Sunday School teacher is also terrific. I mean no disrespect to him. He is wonderful. I think it is the folks in the class who tend to insert comments that may get the lesson off track. I also mean no offense to them. They are sincere, passionate, and faithful. I am simply constantly surprised about things they insert into the lesson. So please, I mean no offense to anyone in our ward. They are wonderful people who have graciously accepted two Mennonites into their midst. I wasn't feeling well Sunday so I didn't go. My wife went and said "everyone" asked about me. That was very nice. As I have said, they have allowed me to teach Sunday School in the absence of the teacher, give a talk in Sacrament service, do a fireside on the LDS history of our area, and sing solos in Sacrament service. My wife and I both pray when asked. I am very confident that should we ever experience need, they would be there for us.

I also need to explain about the hermeneutics. I was raised in a church culture where the majority of sermons were verse by verse exposition of books of the Bible. Our sermons were not topical - they were verse by verse exegesis of the text. I continued that into my own ministry. Whether I was the pastor, an elder, or someone the elders recognized as having a gift for teaching, I most often taught verse by verse through books. For example,  the book of Isaiah would take more than a year of weekly teachings to get through. Sometimes that was Sunday morning, sometimes Sunday evening (we always had four services a Sunday), and sometimes Wednesday or Thursday evenings. I get tickled how often someone in Sunday School or elder's quorum who is sitting next to or behind me asks to see my Bible. You see, we have a debate about electronic devices right now in our ward. When the internet goes out, like it often does in our rural area, everyone is lost, including the teacher! So, I always take my forty year old Bible or my new set of LDS scriptures to services. My Bible is full of notes on practically every page where I have taught through a book. The folks in our ward don't write in their scriptures. Maybe that is a sign of disrespect for them - I really don't know. Anyway, I am often asked if someone can look at my Bible. They  ooh and aah at all the notes, underlinings, etc. I think they think I am smart - so I don't say much to betray that thought! 🙂 Anyway I am used to much more intense scripture study. A verse here and there to prove this or that is what I was taught not to do. Oh, and in our teaching we would present a number of differing views on specific texts. There was never just one; the correct one! That is why I am taken back on this forum when folks say, "Someone has to be right and someone has to be non-Mormon!" Ha! that is not what they say, but what they imply! I am surprised when all the works cited on a specific text, like in Sunday School are only LDS authorities. It seems that there is no interest in differing views on a text. That is totally foreign to me. I own dozens of commentaries representing a wide range of views and would present them all. The goal of our Bible study was to learn and to understand differences; not to promote the one "correct" view. I learned that as a boy, a young man, a university, seminary, and graduate school student and taught that when, as a professor I taught preaching to prospective pastors. That is why I struggle so with understanding Mormonism. It seems the folks are taught thee way, there is only one truth about a passage, and that comes down from on high, and it only supports LDS doctrine. So LDS folks know what they believe, and they know what they have been told others believe. They tend (in my limited experience) not to search out differing views to broaden their understanding. That is one reason I like this forum; many of you seem to have knowledge beyond that imparted by the Brethren over the years. You have done some independent learning. Then there are others here who say outrageous things about Protestants and/or evangelicals and/or fundamentalists that shows minimal understanding. I can relate to what someone just wrote about the Suffering Servant motif of much of Isaiah. However, we are covering Isaiah in like three weeks, we had one each for all the richness of Amos, Hosea, and Job. No time for humor about the shortest man in the Bible - Job's "friend" Bildad the Shuhite (get it)? Or the study of Job, the original "Wizard of Uz!" My Sunday School classmates roll their eyes at my comments - but so does my wife!  If we were to attend a Mormon ward for the rest of our lives, I think I would miss the in-depth study of Scriptures (all four). Thanks for all your replies.

Edited October 2, 2018 by Navidad

[RevTestament]

17 hours ago, Navidad said:

This thread may be a bit strange at first glance. I have basically combined two questions I have. One is about so much and one is about so little. Since starting to attend a LDS ward for all Sunday services a year or so ago I have been surprised at the great significance given to General Conferences. I have read the Shepherd brother's wonderful work on the changing General Conference topics ever since the first one. Before attending the ward I read many General Conference talks; including some that got left out of the archives because the then President didn't approve. But, I was totally unprepared for the emotional attachment to the talks given at GC's. If I had tracked all Sacrament Meetings, all Sunday School Classes, and all Elder's Quorums I have attended, it would show a huge preponderance of teachings from GC's (I am tired of writing out General Conference) talks. More than the Bible or any of the three other LDS scriptures, we are taught from the GC talks. Testimonies invariably stem from GC talks. Sunday School lessons start out in Isaiah and end up in GC talks. Is this typical? ...The principal teaching mechanism in our ward seems to be GC talks. Is this unusual or usual for an LDS ward?

You have brought up a lot of material here, so I am going to respond question by question. As several have mentioned the Church views living prophets often in a more important light than dead ones. That being said, I also see it as the charge of living apostles to preserve and protect the word of God, and I have personal issues with what some modern LDS presidents have apparently said. I like to harp on BY in this regard, who I feel for example dismisses what the scriptures say about the virgin birth too flippantly. But, to answer your question succinctly, yes, you will often hear GC talks quoted in Sacrament talks and, as pointed out, in priesthood meetings and RS - I think the latter are often dealing with current issues, so it makes sense to reference current leadership on those issues. I think most SS classes will have little to no references to GC talks. I have sat in them for years, and recall few such instances. My personal testimony does not stem from GC talks either, and I have never referred to one in reference to my testimony that I recall, but then I am probably not the Peter Priesthood type. I typically don't set personal goals for myself based on GC talks. I believe others do. I know my wife does, and I believe she has referenced GC talks in bearing her testimony. As a poster here likes to say your mileage may vary.

Quote

 In 1932 Elder Richards got his talk stricken from the record for saying some progressive things about the Word of Wisdom. Is that common (having a talk stricken from the record)?

No, it's not common at all. However, I believe some parts of various GC talks have been left out of the official transcript over the decades.

Quote

Anything else you can add about the GC in LDS culture would help me, especially since one is coming up. I would say they remind me of early church councils, without the debates or the no votes, but I think that would upset folks, so no I didn't say that.

Having studied the early Church councils to some degree, I have to strongly disagree with your assessment. The earliest Church councils dealt with issues of the interpretation of the OT - such as whether the proscription of unclean foods literally applied to Christians, issues of circumcision, etc, and to confirm new apostles to replace ones that died. The earliest synods after the first century were held by bishops rather than apostles on disciplinary matters. Since bishops are local judges, disciplinary matters fell within their priesthood callings. However, the scriptures contain no examples of bishops deciding doctrinal matters for the Church like the apostles had done. One such example is the Synod of Antioch in 269 which voted to divest Paul of Samosata from the bishopric - ironically partly based on his use of the word homoousios - which became a mainstay of the Nicene Creed some 56 years later.

Because there were no longer apostles in the Church(admittedly from the LDS POV) later councils consisted of bishops which under the regime of the state Church began to decide issues of doctrine as well. However, these had strong political involvement largely as a result of two schools of Christian thought about the nature of Yeshua - whether He was somehow adopted or begotten by the Father, or had always been the Son. Major issues of these councils were about the Church standing of Arius or Athanasius as the then respective leaders between these two schools of thought. While records are limited, these later councils were nothing like present general conferences, although issues about the nature of God and Yeshua have been brought up in our modern conferences. For one thing in my personal outlook these bishops were completely without authority to decide doctrinal matters for the Church at large, and probably always did not even consist of a majority of the bishops of the Church - even if the bishops in the Parthian Empire are excluded. When the Church became a state entity, the entire nature of the Church was changed, and the councils became politicized, and governed by matters of politics.

Quote

My second point is that after this year I am somewhat surprised at the use of isolated Scripture verses (in all four) to make a point, stretch a point, or prove a point. As a young man, we called that "Scripture twisting." Does the "average in the pew Saint," or teacher get any training in Scripture interpretation (hermeneutics)? One verse comes out of nowhere and a doctrine is the result. I notice this especially in our Old Testament lessons. Is there no real training in the LDS church in Scriptural interpretation. This may sound like a criticism, and maybe it is, but it seems that someone somewhere else in a big building is creating the lessons and the teachers are simply restating what's in the little notes you can click on. Isaiah mentions a few verses about the ground and voila, we have a prediction of the Book of Mormon. Forget the context of Babylon Captivity, unfaithfulness, and the very metaphorical nature of most of Isaiah - we move right to either another validation of things Mormon without paying any attention to the Hebrew language, the 7th and 8th century BC context, etc. etc. I am somewhat disappointed in the lack of evidence of training in the Scriptures (all four). So, one question is about how much there is; and one is about how little there seems to be. I mean neither as a criticism; I am simply seeking to understand.

Many LDS do go to Seminary and receive some scriptural training there. Others take Institute classes which are somewhat more in depth. I would say that in her teen years for instance, my wife was much more educated in the scriptures than the typical Christian. However, in the last few decades a process called correlation has I feel served to discourage studying outside materials and scripture analysis. In some ways that has been good. Wherever one went in the Church, they could pick up from their own or prior ward, and know what the lesson was going to be about, etc. However, I think correlation has stymied personal thought and independent study. How does this impact us? As a brief example, I will cite a recent lesson which mentioned the camel and eye of needle reference in the NT. I pointed out that this seems to be a misnomer based upon an improper translation. The ancient Aramaic word for camel and rope was the same word. The Peshitta says Yeshua said it is easier to thread a (camel) rope through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. How did this difference occur? If both translations came from an Aramaic word used by Yeshua, gamla, then it is easy to explain. Here is the problem for LDS. All our materials deal with the Greek translation, and even accept a common theory that there was a gate called a camel gate in Jerusalem that was only wide enough for one camel to pass through. I spoke up and said there is no evidence in the Bible nor writings of Judaism to support such an assertion, and that the Greek translation here could be wrong. Nope - not gonna go there. No discussion to be had. Why? because all our materials, conference talks etc deal with the Greek translation, and the Protestant explanation/theory that Jerusalem had a camel gate. In essence the Church is very reluctant to admit that Church leaders have been wrong or duped by poor scholasticism, and as a consequence things like the "camel gate" just can't get discussed - the average Church member just doesn't have the ability to interpret Church scripture properly is the inference which bothers me. So that is an example to me of moving past things without considering the context of them. And I think it is a valid point of criticism which doesn't allow for growth outside of the interpretation of Church leaders. Maybe for some that is a comfort, but for me, it is irritating. Nor does it really mesh with the central Church tenant that we seek the truth from wherever it may come.

So I think you have hit on a point of tension within the Church - how to best study the scriptures. In any centralized organization, I think the issue I have raised is going to be there, because Church leaders naturally give interpretations of scripture when they teach from them. Will that organization then countenance whether that is the best or only interpretation? I understand the need of the Church to discourage its members from chasing every wind of doctrine, and the Church members have survived decades of challenges and criticisms by holding fast to its scriptural interpretations, so I suppose the tension in the two areas will continue. Just don't expect a scripture study class which examines all the various historical interpretations of scriptures, etc. That doesn't really happen even in our Institute classes, and is probably one of the reasons there is no Book of Mormon Studies dept at BYU for example(not that I am currently advocating one).

[Jane_Doe]

Another great post here, @Navidad.  You covered a lot of great points, so I'll break you post up to respond to them.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I want to make very clear we really enjoy our ward. The people are warm, inviting, kind, and gracious.

FWIW: I never ever have received anything but this^ exact impression from your posts.  

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I know, thanks to the content analysis work of the Drs. Shepherd that the topics over the years have changed dramatically. I find that very interesting.

This is largely because of shifting circumstances/culture in the world, needing for different topics to be focused at different times.  For one example: during the eras of extremely heavy persecution for LDS folks, that was a very big topic, but nowadays (with much less persecution) it is much less talked about.  Nowadays a the need to minimize distractions (particularly the digital ones) has greatly increased the last 20 years, and hence so have the talks on that.  In the 1800-1850's time, LDS folks were preaching primarily to a audience who came from very solid generic Christian backgrounds, so talking about the Restoration was a bigger deal.  Nowadays, the world is very secular and there's the lack of solid Christ-centeric background, so there's a ton of focus on stressing Christ and building that solid foundation.  

Another big point here: LDS believe in continuing revelation, and lessons focused on our time.  So this^ shifting is not remotely viewed as a bad thing.

Now, of course I'm not going to deny that LDS church culture hasn't changed a lot in the last 200 years --- heck, that's because culture in general has metamorphosed so dramatically over this time.   Us Americans are not iPhone wielding/addicted folks of the 21st century, not backwater 1800's frontiersmen

 

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

 

I also need to explain about the hermeneutics. I was raised in a church culture where the majority of sermons were verse by verse exposition of books of the Bible. Our sermons were not topical - they were verse by verse exegesis of the text. I continued that into my own ministry. Whether I was the pastor, an elder, or someone the elders recognized as having a gift for teaching, I most often taught verse by verse through books. For example,  the book of Isaiah would take more than a year of weekly teachings to get through. Sometimes that was Sunday morning, sometimes Sunday evening (we always had four services a Sunday), and sometimes Wednesday or Thursday evenings. I get tickled how often someone in Sunday School or elder's quorum who is sitting next to or behind me asks to see my Bible. 

Ah, thank you for this elaboration.  I have seen that style of teaching (mostly in non-LDS churches I visit), and find value in it.  There are some LDS folks and teachers that will teach this way, but it's uncommon.  It works best in classes that meet many times a week (such an Institute classes) simply due to the time required.    

By far, the most popular style in LDS circles during Sunday meetings is topical teaching with big-picture focus, as you've seen.  

Though of course, individual LDS folks certainly have zero problem focusing on individual verses during personal study time. (Personal study is when the true muscle building time is)

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

. You see, we have a debate about electronic devices right now in our ward. When the internet goes out, like it often does in our rural area, everyone is lost, including the teacher! So, I always take my forty year old Bible or my new set of LDS scriptures to services. My Bible is full of notes on practically every page where I have taught through a book. The folks in our ward don't write in their scriptures. Maybe that is a sign of disrespect for them - I really don't know. 

I used to be very much of the it's-disrepsectful-to-write-in-my-scriptures camp (my personal philosophy).  So instead my notes were on scrap pieces of paper, which pile into my scripture bag.

 Nowadays I don't really have a problem with writing scriptures, I just perfer my scraps of paper.  During my personal study time, I almost always in-depth study of a few verses, but not with my paper scriptures-- so much better to have a computer open where I can have a MILLION different tabs open for cross referencing!!

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Anyway I am used to much more intense scripture study.

I get that.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Oh, and in our teaching we would present a number of differing views on specific texts. There was never just one; the correct one! That is why I am taken back on this forum when folks say, "Someone has to be right and someone has to be non-Mormon!" Ha! that is not what they say, but what they imply! I am surprised when all the works cited on a specific text, like in Sunday School are only LDS authorities. It seems that there is no interest in differing views on a text. That is totally foreign to me. I own dozens of commentaries representing a wide range of views and would present them all. The goal of our Bible study was to learn and to understand differences; not to promote the one "correct" view. 

This depends on which passage you're talking about.  

--If you're talking about an Isaiah passage (for example), a passage could be a prophecy/reference to three different things, and this will gladly be acknowledged in LDS circles, even if there's not time to talk about it is a small Sunday School window.

--Background information (such as historical stuff): An LDS person/teacher certainly is welcome to use any of these references in research, and it's cool.  My GD teacher bringing in his speciality on game birds is an example of this.  But your LDS Sunday School manual is not going to directly reference "The Encyclopedia of Game Birds" in the manual.  Some of that information might indeed be stated in background stuff (like an LDS printed Bible has maps which are not of LDS-solo origin) and no one is going to pretend this is LDS-solo origin. 

-- Differing opinions on non-core-theology stuff: some LDS folks believe in a literal flood that covered the whole earth, and some view it as a regional thing, etc.  And that's cool.  And in a lesson on Noah's Ark, this can indeed be mentioned, sure no problem.  But if you spend the entire hour lesson debating the differences in these views... but how about instead lets talk about the spiritual message here instead?  (Obviously this was an example, but you get the idea)

-- Differing opinions on core theology stuff (another example to illustrate the idea): baptism by immersion is required for salvation.  That is clearly revealed in scripture and solidified by the Lord's prophets.   It is Truth.  We're not going to spend church class time teaching baptism by sprinkling because that is incorrect doctrine. 

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

So LDS folks know what they believe, and they know what they have been told others believe. They tend (in my limited experience) not to search out differing views to broaden their understanding. 

I am a person who loves visiting other churches and hearing a huge variety of perspectives-- it's my hobby and passion.  I find that people at large do NOT share this passion.  In fact, I meet a LOT of non-LDS Christians that are downright hostile to me doing this- viewing it as a weakness or opening up to poison.  In contrast, LDS folks most commonly treat my hobby as "that's cool for you, any interesting experiences?"   They aren't interested in joining me on random-church-crashing, but they are interested hearing the stories.   Which is much more open than the generic Christian reaction I'm used to.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

You have done some independent learning. 

Every LDS person is *supposed* to be doing daily study time and independent learning.  Many fail, but it's what they are supposed to be doing. 

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

 Then there are others here who say outrageous things about Protestants and/or evangelicals and/or fundamentalists that shows minimal understanding. 

No denying that.  But it's also not a unique LDS thing.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

However, we are covering Isaiah in like three weeks, we had one each for all the richness of Amos, Hosea, and Job.

I get you there.  Isaiah is my favorite book of scripture and the plainest for me to read (I'm very unique that way), so the shortness Isaiah receives always makes me sad.  But still, I do acknowledge that many of folks are extremely confused by it and it's not a book they get much out of compared to other books.  Hence the majority class focuses on the 'easier' books, and my personal study time spends WAY more time in Isaiah.  

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

If we were to attend a Mormon ward for the rest of our lives, I think I would miss the in-depth study of Scriptures (all four). Thanks for all your replies.

I get that 100%.  Things to do to help: bring your expertise/perspective to the table, and let it shine.  This too encourages others to do the same, and enriches everyone.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

When I think of Jesus, I have in mind his teaching on divorce. Instead of his position being informed by actual teachings on divorce in  the Tanakh, he goes to the story about Adam and Eve, which doesn't have anything to do with divorce. Is there an actual hermeneutical rule at play there?

I don't say this like it's a bad thing. I think spiritual texts can serve as spring boards to new revelation, without always worrying about the intent and historical context of the text.

I recommend the balanced discussion at https://www.wisereaction.org/ebooks/wenham_divorce_first.pdf .

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I often hear this claim, and it usually means that misinterpretation (eisegesis) begins with Jesus himself.  However, when we look more closely, internal NT interpretation specifically and rabbinic interpretation generally follow well-known hermeneutical rules -- and are most readily exemplified by the interpretive work at Qumran, at Alexandria, and in contemporary talmudic discourse.  Modern rabbis, as well as most Protestant and Roman Catholic pastors are specifically trained to understand and utilize such interpretive tools, and vast encyclopedic works have been created to provide immediate reference to a host of theological and hermeneutical questions and answers.  In other words, it turns out on close examination that Jesus taught classic rabbinic Judaism a la Beit Hillel, and that St Paul did likewise.  Both were Pharisaic rabbis.  To understand that is the beginning of wisdom in Scriptural interpretation.

Mormons of all sorts (including the leaders) tend to ignore all that and go directly to the Lord instead.  They are dependent upon the Holy Spirit for interpretation of the same Scripture which came via the Holy Spirit.   Mormons therefore probably do far less Scripture twisting than their apostate counterparts in other religions.  At least that is what the statistics show about better Mormon command of Scriptural resources.

The issue for me is since one has to go to the Spirit for confirmation that the "scholars" are "correct" anyway,  why do we need the middleman in the first place?

If one wants to eschew authority as perhaps the OP desires, isn't one simply putting scholars in the place of Priesthood as THE authorities for interpretation?

At that point the scholar becomes the Priest while all the while the typical Protestant will protest precisely HAVING a priest in order to understand scripture.

The position just seems self-contradictory to me!

Yet of course there are always new interpretations or others we personally have not seen and so I accept the need both for scholarly direction and priesthood direction in such matters,  but the confirmation by the Spirit is always the key anyway.

 

[The Nehor]

I will admit I much prefer a passage by passage style of teaching and use it myself most of the time when I teach. LDS lesson manuals bore me. I stick to the assigned material but not necessarily the verses they say to discuss. Last week I taught Isaiah 1 to 6. Started at 6 with Isaiah's call since that makes better narrative sense and then we had a brief discussion comparing it to the beginning of some other apocalyptic experiences. Then we went over his call to the ministry or, as I put it, "the most depressing mission call in scripture". Then we hit Isaiah and I summarized some bits and then we talked about passages in Isaiah 1 and 2 and talked about the intended shock value of God saying that their religious practices were an abomination to him and why that was. I think it went well.

But little to no hermeneutics or exegesis as such. My job as a teacher is to teach truth so the Spirit can be there and attempt to uplift the people in the class to a greater desire to serve God. Time spent on what it would have meant to pre and post Babylonian exile Jews might be interesting and I read a little of that myself but it is not what Sunday School is for.

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The issue for me is since one has to go to the Spirit for confirmation that the "scholars" are "correct" anyway,  why do we need the middleman in the first place?

If one wants to eschew authority as perhaps the OP desires, isn't one simply putting scholars in the place of Priesthood as THE authorities for interpretation?

At that point the scholar becomes the Priest while all the while the typical Protestant will protest precisely HAVING a priest in order to understand scripture.

The position just seems self-contradictory to me!

Yet of course there are always new interpretations or others we personally have not seen and so I accept the need both for scholarly direction and priesthood direction in such matters,  but the confirmation by the Spirit is always the key anyway.

 

Sorry for being dumb, but what is the OP? Original Protestant; Original Poster; Obviously Profound?  Methinks it must be the original poster, referring to me? If so, I have no idea why you would say I "eschew" authority? Is it because I affirm that I see nothing in Mormon males that indicates anything special above that which I see in any Godly person (male or female) of any denomination; those who are committed to Christ-likeness? I understand your anger at being so marginalized as to be compared to any other Godly Christian! Let me reiterate - I do not believe in a special male Mormon priesthood authority because I have, for at least a year searched for the same in you all and have come up with a specialness that only matches, but does not exceed that of any Godly man or woman of any Christian group. You may claim all the special, unique, only authority you want, but I for one fail to see it, as hard as I have tried. That doesn't mean I detract from your Godliness; I only reject your uniqueness. In that case I guess I think you are the ones who are self-contradictory with a huge blind-spot to boot. And that doesn't come from reading Walter Martin; it comes from close contact and proximity to my LDS friends. I interact with many Mormon priesthood holders and yes, they are not the authorities for Biblical, or perhaps not even for LDS scriptural interpretation. They don't even try! They are like parrots; routinely repeating what they have heard over and over. Virtually every prayer is just like every other prayer. Every testimony is just like every other testimony. I thirst for something personal; something authentic and self-revelatory; much less robotic. 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The issue for me is since one has to go to the Spirit for confirmation that the "scholars" are "correct" anyway,  why do we need the middleman in the first place?

If one wants to eschew authority as perhaps the OP desires, isn't one simply putting scholars in the place of Priesthood as THE authorities for interpretation?

At that point the scholar becomes the Priest while all the while the typical Protestant will protest precisely HAVING a priest in order to understand scripture.

The position just seems self-contradictory to me!

Yet of course there are always new interpretations or others we personally have not seen and so I accept the need both for scholarly direction and priesthood direction in such matters,  but the confirmation by the Spirit is always the key anyway.

LDS doctrine does claim that both secular and spiritual means of knowing are worthwhile, and it is true that there is a special kind of CES "priesthood" in Seminaries and Institutes pretending to play the scholarly game.  In reality, the LDS faith spends very little time in focus on scholarship -- unless it is of the predigested variety.  There are so few Mormons who are actually biblical scholars or theologians, and that by choice not direction.