Conference discussion

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And the meaning of the author will always trump the interpretation of the meaning by a reader.   A reader simply doesn’t have the ability to tell the author “no, you did not mean that, you meant this”.

While you are correct that the reader cannot tell the author "no, you did not mean that," the reader can certainly tell the author, "no, the text does not mean that." The evidence for meaning comes from the text itself. The author can certainly intend something, and that intention certainly influences the language in the text, but in the end it is the language that imparts meaning, not the author's intention.

I can intend to draw a cow, but if it looks like a pig it doesn't matter what my intent was. The evidence is right there: it looks like a pig. So the viewer can't tell me that I intended to draw a pig (I did not, I intended a cow), but the viewer can certainly point to the picture and use the evidence of the picture to show that what I drew looks more like a pig than a cow. At that point, my intention doesn't matter, it is the evidence that matters.

This is the beauty of art (all art, literature included) -- it is not black/white, right/wrong. The author can't come along and tell me that my interpretation is wrong simply because she is the author. She would have to show me in the text evidence that proves that her intention actually came to fruition. And likewise I could show her in the text that my interpretation has better evidence than her intention. Her power as author lies in creation -- she makes the choices of language that she hopes fulfills her intents. But once a reader is involved, her interpretative authority is removed. It is to the text that we turn for evidence, because it is the text that we are discussing, not her intentions, but the actual text.

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I can definitely appreciate this thought, Tacenda. I cannot channel Pres. Eyring, but I can mention my experience: after my wife passed away, I walked alone, too, but only to others' eyes.  I might have appeared to be alone, but she was really still with me.  A few weeks after the funeral, an older sister we knew asked me "Do you still talk with her?"  My answer was "Every day!"  I miss her, regret she cannot be with me now, but the love goes on!

And bless you for thinking of Pres. Eyring like this!

Well what a kind thing to say to me Star! I thought Sister Eyring was still alive but not in good health, I thought she has/had dementia. Can't for the life of me find her obituary.

Love this tribute by her son: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCKkV4g6NFs

And this article...

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900041021/president-eyring-paints-to-capture-memories-of-his-wife-who-is-in-failing-health.html

 

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

While you are correct that the reader cannot tell the author "no, you did not mean that," the reader can certainly tell the author, "no, the text does not mean that." The evidence for meaning comes from the text itself. The author can certainly intend something, and that intention certainly influences the language in the text, but in the end it is the language that imparts meaning, not the author's intention.

I can intend to draw a cow, but if it looks like a pig it doesn't matter what my intent was. The evidence is right there: it looks like a pig. So the viewer can't tell me that I intended to draw a pig (I did not, I intended a cow), but the viewer can certainly point to the picture and use the evidence of the picture to show that what I drew looks more like a pig than a cow. At that point, my intention doesn't matter, it is the evidence that matters.

This is the beauty of art (all art, literature included) -- it is not black/white, right/wrong. The author can't come along and tell me that my interpretation is wrong simply because she is the author. She would have to show me in the text evidence that proves that her intention actually came to fruition. And likewise I could show her in the text that my interpretation has better evidence than her intention. Her power as author lies in creation -- she makes the choices of language that she hopes fulfills her intents. But once a reader is involved, her interpretative authority is removed. It is to the text that we turn for evidence, because it is the text that we are discussing, not her intentions, but the actual text.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. 😊

The text can give evidence of it’s meaning, but evidence is also based only on the interpretation of the reader and is not fact. Many an innocent person has been convicted based on “evidence of their guilt.”  

We aren’t really ever discussing the text, we are discussing our interpretation of the text. The text is nothing without that interpretation. It’s just marks on paper. 

In regards to a drawing, it doesn’t matter whether or not the cow looks like a cow or a pig.  If you (the creator) drew a cow then that’s what you drew.  Someone else can interpret it as a pig, it might even look more like a pig than a cow, but that does not change the absolute that you drew a cow.

Someone can say “it looks like a pig to me” but their interpretation doesn’t change what you drew.  You drew a cow, regardless of what anyone else sees.

 

Edited April 7, 2019 by bluebell

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Elder Cook: Mothers and Fathers have equal right to revelation.

And so it has ever been as far back as I remember.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

In literary analysis, this is the authorial intent fallacy. The meaning of a work of literature is not determined solely by what the author intended. The ambiguities of language and the reader’s personal experiences also come into play. The ultimate authority for the meaning of a text is the text itself, not the author. 

Not to mention that I have not had a conversation with Michelangelo in a few hundred years, if I recall.

And Ouija boards are not acceptable.

Moses himself is just as hard to reach 

[USU78]

"In Biblical Hebrew, the idea of repentance is represented by two verbs: שוב shuv (to return) and נחם nacham (to feel sorrow). In the New Testament, the word translated as 'repentance' is the Greek word μετάνοια (metanoia), "after/behind one's mind", which is a compound word of the preposition 'meta' (after, with), and the verb 'noeo' (to perceive, to think, the result of perceiving or observing). In this compound word, the preposition combines the two meanings of time and change, which may be denoted by 'after' and 'different'; so that the whole compound means: 'to think differently after'. Metanoia is therefore primarily an after-thought, different from the former thought; a change of mind and change of conduct, "change of mind and heart", or, "change of consciousness"

[katherine the great]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

President Nelson's talk was touching while speaking of his daughter Wendy, loved it. He's a good man, but at the end of the talk he speaks of those members that are on the outside, he speaks as if these people haven't tried or is quite amazed at those those that do not want to take the steps to exaltation.

But what he doesn't get nor most TBM's, is that those that do not want to do this, see something wrong with the picture. Or the path. But TBM's that watch this will be so heartsick at their loved ones taking this supposedly wrong path. And if they remember Sister Banks talk they'll think it's the devil that's gotten to their loved ones.

Thus, it just drives wedges amongst family members. I've tried to watch with an open mind and open heart, but it's these talks that cause problems, perhaps even divorces among the part member or part believing family members. 

I agree with you on this Tacenda. I didn't used to think this way but life can change a person's viewpoint.

[bluebell]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Not to mention that I have not had a conversation with Michelangelo in a few hundred years, if I recall.

And Ouija boards are not acceptable.

Moses himself is just as hard to reach 

Not being able to go to the source to discover truth does not mean that the truth doesn’t exist. 

Whether or not we have access to the truth does not affect the truth in any way. 

[mfbukowski]

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I disagree.  A text has no meaning except that which comes from the author and that which comes from the interpretation of the reader. 

Without the author and/or the reader the text has no meaning. Text cannot have meaning  in and of itself. 

And the meaning of the author will always trump the interpretation of the meaning by a reader.   A reader simply doesn’t have the ability to tell the author “no, you did not mean that, you meant this”.

Do we can never then know the "truth" of history, and because we cannot talk to Mormon, we cannot know the truth of the Book of Mormon, nor interpret it correctly.

Interesting idea.

[MiserereNobis]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We’ll have to agree to disagree. 😊

Indeed  I'll end this tangent that in my view the point of art is not to try to figure out what the author intended -- that turns art (again, art meaning all art including literature, etc) into a secret code game: I'll encode my meaning into this story and you use your secret decoder ring to try to figure out what I meant. If the point of art is to decipher the artist's intent, then absolutely the artist is the absolute authority.

But I think art is bigger than that and meaning more complex and indeed elusive. I don't read a poem to find the author's intent; I read a poem to find/create meaning, a meaning that is influenced by the author's choices, the actual language, and my personal experiences.

I'll close with this quote from "Heart of Darkness":

Quote

"The meaning of an episode was not inside, like a kernel, but outside, enveloping the tale which brought it out only as a glow brings out a haze.”

I love it because meaning is elusive like fog, we grasp for it and we hold it, kinda, like we can kinda hold fog.

Ok, sorry again for the digression but as an author and an English teacher this is something I feel strongly about. I definitely indoctrinate my students against your view  

I won't say anymore so the thread stays on topic so you can have the last word, if you want. Thanks for a quick discussion on something I enjoy  

[Duncan]

Pres. Oaks talking about how harder it is to repent in the next life, is that for those who had a chance here to accept the Gospel but didn't? Because, 99% of humankind haven't been around to hear and accept the true Gospel and so are in the next life hopefully trying to repent-it's like showing up for the test of your life and for your life but you didn't even know their was a test and 99% of people doing it

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Indeed  I'll end this tangent that in my view the point of art is not to try to figure out what the author intended -- that turns art (again, art meaning all art including literature, etc) into a secret code game: I'll encode my meaning into this story and you use your secret decoder ring to try to figure out what I meant. If the point of art is to decipher the artist's intent, then absolutely the artist is the absolute authority.

But I think art is bigger than that and meaning more complex and indeed elusive. I don't read a poem to find the author's intent; I read a poem to find/create meaning, a meaning that is influenced by the author's choices, the actual language, and my personal experiences.

I'll close with this quote from "Heart of Darkness":

I love it because meaning is elusive like fog, we grasp for it and we hold it, kinda, like we can kinda hold fog.

Ok, sorry again for the digression but as an author and an English teacher this is something I feel strongly about. I definitely indoctrinate my students against your view  

I won't say anymore so the thread stays on topic so you can have the last word, if you want. Thanks for a quick discussion on something I enjoy  

I agree with you on the intent of art. I think that discussing art and discussing fact (or truth) are two different discussions. 😊

Edited April 7, 2019 by bluebell

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, USU78 said:

In that state the artist's intentionality becomes irrelevant.

And @bluebell"liked" this?

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree with you on the intent of art. I think that discussing art and discussing fact (or truth) are two different discussions. 😊

Yay!

Then we agree about the dots perfectly.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Do we can never then know the "truth" of history, and because we cannot talk to Mormon, we cannot know the truth of the Book of Mormon, nor interpret it correctly.

Interesting idea.

Well, as a historian, one of the first things my history professors taught me was that yes, we can’t know the truth of history. All we can do is try to interpret the evidence before us, but in the absence of primary sources we won’t know how accurate those interpretations are.  

But in regards to the Book of Mormon, Mormon is not the source of truth on that, God is.  And we do have access to God so yes, we can know the truth of that book. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yay!

Then we agree about the dots perfectly.

If you remember, our conversation was not about the meaning of the dots as art, but about what the speaker was using the dots to teach about perspective and truth. 

[Okrahomer]

I loved Elder Gong’s message and his gentle and intelligent manner.  When he spoke about the One True Shepherd and Lamb of God, I felt the truth of it.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If someone doesn't value the organization or what the organization offers, or if she sees those things differently than someone else does, why worry about what people inside the organization think? 

Because maybe they are married to someone who still believes? Maybe because the believing spouse hears messages like this and weeps with dispair? 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Not being able to go to the source to discover truth does not mean that the truth doesn’t exist. 

Whether or not we have access to the truth does not affect the truth in any way. 

How do we know this de facto claim is itself true?

Because you say so?

Edit: nevermind, it's ok

Edited April 7, 2019 by mfbukowski

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

And so it has ever been as far as I remember.

Ensign February 1973:

https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/1973/02/strengthening-the-patriarchal-order-in-the-home?lang=eng

I’m not sure the teaching of who receives authoritative revelation has always been so egalitarian.

[member10_1]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I disagree.  As the creator, it is not his or her opinion. It is fact, absolute. 

I just can’t find any practical use for this line of thinking. The nature of absolute truths, power, or beings is irrelevant. I cannot be privy to the state of things beyond my senses and interpretations, including the intentions of a creator, and therefore cannot even attempt to align my beliefs with the absolute. You presuppose an ability that I just don’t have. 

 

[mfbukowski]

Elder Bednar!

Yes!

Get your own testimony and accept no substitutes for "truth" which others tell you!

 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, member10_1 said:

I just can’t find any practical use for this line of thinking. The nature of absolute truths, power, or beings is irrelevant. I cannot be privy to the state of things beyond my senses and interpretations, including the intentions of a creator, and therefore cannot even attempt to align my beliefs with the absolute. You presuppose an ability that I just don’t have. 

 

I believe that we (both you and I) can be privy to knowledge beyond our senses (I believe this partly because I have personally experienced such). 

We do not have the ability on our own but with the Spirit and God’s blessings and mercy, definitely. 

And that’s why absolute truth is not irrelevant. 😊

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, member10_1 said:

I just can’t find any practical use for this line of thinking. The nature of absolute truths, power, or beings is irrelevant. I cannot be privy to the state of things beyond my senses and interpretations, including the intentions of a creator, and therefore cannot even attempt to align my beliefs with the absolute. You presuppose an ability that I just don’t have. 

 

Neither does anyone else, see Elder Bednar's talk

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

How do we know this de facto claim is itself true?

Because you say so?

Definitely not.  All truth is a part of God. We can go to the source to know what is true and what isn’t.