Robert F. Smith Posted April 22, 2019 Posted April 22, 2019 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Agreed. BUT.... I think if we had a uniform view of how to understand scripture it would go a long way to functioning LIKE a "uniform theology"- in that confusion in interpretations would be avoided. So we would retain the ability to keep scripture primary, while having perhaps a uniformly accepted methodology for interpreting scripture which would also allow for personal variation according to what we receive in individual testimony experiences. I see it as somewhat contradictory to insist that each person have her own "testimony" while insisting that all "true" testimonies retain certain uniform content, like perhaps, prophetic infallibility which arguably might conflict with free agency at least in principle. A literal interpretation of Genesis, we have seen, is perceived to conflict with science (though I disagree with that due to the fact that the apparent conflict can be explained through seeing each as a different paradigm or language game) The question of which member or even faith has the RIGHT "testimony" clearly conflicts with the teaching that ALL may earnestly seek the Spirit to receive their own answers. A methodology which taught that God can move each of us according to His own plan for us as individuals, would go a long way toward making our insistence on" having our own testimonies" consistent with individual growth and gospel maturation. One does not expect a primary child to have the same kind of testimony as a BYU PhD. Yet we see those kind of discussions here on this board all the time coming from new converts or others who may not fully understand the gospel, accusing others of near apostasy because their personal testimony disagrees with the other person's testimony. And so I think a uniform understanding about how gospel interpretation happens would be a great step for unification, even if we acknowledge that there will never be - and should not be- a "systematic theology" which puts "the philosophies of men" ahead of personal revelation- ie: scripture- of our own or anciently revealed. I think some kind of mechanism for teaching literary hermeneutics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics early on is essential to achieving this kind of goal. ............................................... We are not going to be able to train the average Latter-day Saint in theology, nor in hermeneutical techniques. Even the Brethren avoid that like the plague. No Islamic Ulema for us. However, I have spent a lifetime in mainstream biblical scholarship, and have never found it a threat to LDS interpretation. In fact, it seems to me that LDS theology and Scripture can withstand close scholarly examination. 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: And yes, the other side of this is teaching orthopraxis and that being LDS IS a lifestyle, and any measure of whether or not one's individual testimonies are "right" has always to end in a test not of opinion but of orthopraxis through the temple recommend interview or some similar test of orthopraxis...................................... For the average Latter-day Saint, emphasis on lifestyle (including ministering), temple attendance, Sacrament meetings, and a straightforward Sunday School approach is probably best. The Jews likewise emphasize three things to sustain their religious community: study of Torah, temple work, and charitable acts. This has helped them survive for thousands of years. 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: I think we are headed in the right direction, I just wish someone would stand on the gas pedal and get there quicker before we lose any more members to the old method. ................................................... The LDS Church is more successful than most, but there are problems of retention -- especially of men. I think we need to follow the general advice of Dr Jordan Peterson, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFLPIaJydYs .
mfbukowski Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 On 4/21/2019 at 7:32 PM, Robert F. Smith said: We are not going to be able to train the average Latter-day Saint in theology, nor in hermeneutical techniques. Even the Brethren avoid that like the plague. No Islamic Ulema for us. However, I have spent a lifetime in mainstream biblical scholarship, and have never found it a threat to LDS interpretation. In fact, it seems to me that LDS theology and Scripture can withstand close scholarly examination. For the average Latter-day Saint, emphasis on lifestyle (including ministering), temple attendance, Sacrament meetings, and a straightforward Sunday School approach is probably best. The Jews likewise emphasize three things to sustain their religious community: study of Torah, temple work, and charitable acts. This has helped them survive for thousands of years. The LDS Church is more successful than most, but there are problems of retention -- especially of men. I think we need to follow the general advice of Dr Jordan Peterson, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFLPIaJydYs . Well I think you are right on many of these points, I have tried to get across the most simple ideas of hermeneutics that seem obvious, here for years and frankly I have helped a few get beyond literalism, but not many. I mean the notion that we cannot get beyond the appearances of things as humans see them to "real things" seems to me so obviously true- and that means that religious experience can have equal validity with scientific observation as long as we keep each discipline in its context as differing language games seems SO obvious I cannot even explain it clearly apparently to those who do not see it immediately. If this view were adopted we would have no more worries about apologetics, the ridiculous statements of anti-Mormons, like the CES letter etc, would become merely comically ignorant tirades. And suddenly also religious experience and personal revelation become logically justifiable, as seen now by many - even atheistic- philosophers. It's incredible that we cannot adopt contemporary post-modern philosophy to our advantage by making "equal truth" mean that religion and science are in a sense "equally true" in their spheres It's all there but no one wants to even look at it. It - to me- almost becomes a parable like the brazen serpent. The solution of all of it is right there to see but no one wants to turn their head to look. And by understanding that "text" - the Word- constructs the world as we know it and speak about it, suddenly snaps John 1 into a new perspective in my opinion highly compatible with the church. The Word creates reality!! In short if these concepts were grasped generally all these silly quibblings about science and history and how they allegedly affect religion would simply disappear. Each is equally true within its sphere! But then there is "no absolute truth" and instead of seeing that as compatible with seeing "through a glass darkly, but then face to face" and the story of the tower of Babel confounding language, they only see the horrors of "relativism" and if truth is variable- how can the gospel be "true"? And the self-contradiction of positivism still reigns supreme with those who are uneducated in philosophy I guess. The relativity of truth is precisely what MAKES the gospel TRUE in any way that makes sense to the secularists, whom presumably we want to convert. But of course they will not convert because we don't know these points about relativism they already take for granted, and value. We could help them join the church- but no- that might mean saying that secularism might actually not be a scary monster trying to devour religion, a monster lurking in the closet- keep that door closed or it might get out!! So you say "keep it simple" and I suppose you are right, but keeping it simple makes it so complicated! We get to argue about the evils of evolution and a world- wide flood and how that somehow does not make us look foolish to the rest of the world, while it blatantly does. And the Book of Abraham does not translate so it is false literature created by a charlatan, and should be removed from the canon. Oh My Gosh. Loved the Jordan Peterson piece- thanks- but I don't think AOC would give it her imprimatur. And what I saw there was a whole lot of hermeneutics or at least exegesis, but great stuff! 1
Robert F. Smith Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Well I think you are right on many of these points, I have tried to get across the most simple ideas of hermeneutics that seem obvious, here for years and frankly I have helped a few get beyond literalism, but not many. I mean the notion that we cannot get beyond the appearances of things as humans see them to "real things" seems to me so obviously true- and that means that religious experience can have equal validity with scientific observation as long as we keep each discipline in its context as differing language games seems SO obvious I cannot even explain it clearly apparently to those who do not see it immediately. If this view were adopted we would have no more worries about apologetics, the ridiculous statements of anti-Mormons, like the CES letter etc, would become merely comically ignorant tirades. And suddenly also religious experience and personal revelation become logically justifiable, as seen now by many - even atheistic- philosophers. It's incredible that we cannot adopt contemporary post-modern philosophy to our advantage by making "equal truth" mean that religion and science are in a sense "equally true" in their spheres It's all there but no one wants to even look at it. It - to me- almost becomes a parable like the brazen serpent. The solution of all of it is right there to see but no one wants to turn their head to look. And by understanding that "text" - the Word- constructs the world as we know it and speak about it, suddenly snaps John 1 into a new perspective in my opinion highly compatible with the church.................................... Perhaps I should have been more bullish on the power of the Holy Spirit, which is really the best defense against the P T Barnum nonsense which the millennials must daily face in our time. However, if the youth don't study hard in elementary and secondary school they will not have the skills to understand the texts and the Word which you speak of. Dr Jordan Peterson, you'll notice, is constantly citing great literature as an object lesson of this or that important principle. Those ignorant of Western Civilization and the precise use of language will not make it through the coming big SAT. How else will they understand Prof Adam Miller when he says: Quote Mormonism has . . . been marrow to my bones, joy to my heart, light to my eyes, music to my ears, and life to my whole being. Thus lit up, I woke to find Jesus leaning over me, smiling wide, with the Book of Mormon snapped like smelling salts beneath my nose. Miller, Rube Goldberg Machines: Essays in Mormon Theology (SLC: Greg Kofford Books, 2012), 126. 3
Hamba Tuhan Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 Quote Mormonism has . . . been marrow to my bones, joy to my heart, light to my eyes, music to my ears, and life to my whole being. Thus lit up, I woke to find Jesus leaning over me, smiling wide, with the Book of Mormon snapped like smelling salts beneath my nose. Miller, Rube Goldberg Machines: Essays in Mormon Theology (SLC: Greg Kofford Books, 2012), 126. This! I know this. 2
Tacenda Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 (edited) 7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: This! I know this. Good for you, MF and Robert, but it doesn't do it for many others, try 99 percent of the rest of the world, apparently. Does that make the church not true for you three? Not at all. But where does that make the 99% wrong? Since the church thinks they do have it wrong, or why else would they try to convert? Not wrong really, I want to retract, but not fully right? Edited April 23, 2019 by Tacenda
Recommended Posts