Doctrinal Amendments . What Is the Correct Term?

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Of course that is the whole quote. Without wanting to get the thread off track - I have always thought it interesting that I have never heard a talk about the last phrase in that verse. Those words and their meaning are so important - "speaking unto the church collectively and not individually." This was a 1831 revelation, very soon after the church was founded. There were not many in the church at this point in time. There were even fewer wards, branches, or sites at that time. I would like to offer a hermeneutic that suggests that Christ was saying that "the only true and living church" with which he was well-pleased was the collective Christian church - the great Christian community which in 1831 was pretty robust. That makes sense with the notation that He was speaking "unto the church collectively (the larger Christian church as a whole) and not individually (the tiny church that had just been founded some short months before)! How could the word "collectively" make any sense in a 1831 LDS church context? Context and chronology are important, no? 

OK, I didn't think anyone would agree with me! 😃

No, seems to me that the most obvious way to interpret those words is to understand that he was talking about the Church, collectively, rather than individual members of it.

The context in which our Lord is saying this is helpful in understanding what he meant, too.  Read the whole thing and realize that this revelation was given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, on November 1, 1831, during a special conference of elders of the Church, held at Hiram, Ohio. Many revelations had been received from the Lord prior to this time, and the compilation of these for publication in book form was one of the principal subjects passed upon at the conference. This section constitutes the Lord’s preface to the doctrines, covenants, and commandments given in this dispensation.

[Ahab]

31 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Just to clarify, is it the official LDS position that all of those people you mentioned were baptized and given the Holy Ghost? Or is that just your interpretation?

Why are you asking me that question?  I don't speak as an official representative of the whole church.  I am officially LDS, though.

I suggest you do your own homework to find out what the Church, collectively, teaches.  Or better yet, find out what a presiding high priest (President) of the Church has taught on this issue.  He doesn't speak for everybody, either, but he does at least speak for the Lord, officially.

edited to add: since information can be hard for people to find, sometimes, I'm proving this link as something to help point you in the right direction: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/15-baptism?lang=eng

 

Edited February 24, 2020 by Ahab

[strappinglad]

In Math I use the term " fudgajusting " . For example, if I flip a coin , the odds of getting a head is 50% . If I flip a coin 100 times will I therefore get a result of 50  heads and 50 tails? Not likely. If I flip a coin 10,000 times will I get 5000 heads and 5000 tails? Probably not but it will be close. If I flip a coin 10000 times and get 2000 heads and 8000 tails , that tells me the coin is not well balanced, either accidently or, more likely, on purpose. 

Perhaps ' doctrine ' is like that. There is a theoretical perfect doctrine , but our ability to practise it is a bit unbalanced and we are constantly fudgajusting the practise to more closely aligne ourselves with that perfection. 

[MiserereNobis]

37 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Why are you asking me that question?  I don't speak as an official representative of the whole church.  I am officially LDS, though.

I suggest you do your own homework to find out what the Church, collectively, teaches.  Or better yet, find out what a presiding high priest (President) of the Church has taught on this issue.  He doesn't speak for everybody, either, but he does at least speak for the Lord, officially.

edited to add: since information can be hard for people to find, sometimes, I'm proving this link as something to help point you in the right direction: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/15-baptism?lang=eng

 

I'm asking the question because this is a discussion board and you posted a claim and I wanted more information on it. I ask this type of question often because I know there are many people here who have their own ideas or speculations and I was wondering if this was one of those time.

If I made a claim about Catholicism and somebody asked me if that was official Catholic view or my own take on it I wouldn't have a problem telling them one way or another and I certainly wouldn't tell them to go look for it themselves since I was the one who brought it up.

You could have answered the question simply enough in the time it took you to write your post telling me to go look it up.

[Navidad]

45 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, seems to me that the most obvious way to interpret those words is to understand that he was talking about the Church, collectively, rather than individual members of it.

The context in which our Lord is saying this is helpful in understanding what he meant, too.  Read the whole thing and realize that this revelation was given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, on November 1, 1831, during a special conference of elders of the Church, held at Hiram, Ohio. Many revelations had been received from the Lord prior to this time, and the compilation of these for publication in book form was one of the principal subjects passed upon at the conference. This section constitutes the Lord’s preface to the doctrines, covenants, and commandments given in this dispensation.

Yes, I understand that. My question is, on Nov 1, 1831 how many members of the church were there? How many separate and distinct wards were there? How many stakes? What would the meaning or purpose of the word "collectively" be for such a small group of folks located in one small geographic area? According to the wikipedia website the church had 680 members in total in 1831. It is hard (for me) to reconcile such an interpretation for such a tiny group of people. There must be a greater distinction that Christ had in mind when He said He was speaking to the church collectively versus individually. I am not trying just to debate. I really genuinely want to understand this verse better. Apparently an LDS urologist from the SLC area gave a talk last year at the Sunstone conference on this very issue. I would love to get a copy of it. I could also use his advice on . . . well let's just say I am over 70 years old! Ha!

[Ahab]

24 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm asking the question because this is a discussion board and you posted a claim and I wanted more information on it. I ask this type of question often because I know there are many people here who have their own ideas or speculations and I was wondering if this was one of those time.

If I made a claim about Catholicism and somebody asked me if that was official Catholic view or my own take on it I wouldn't have a problem telling them one way or another and I certainly wouldn't tell them to go look for it themselves since I was the one who brought it up.

You could have answered the question simply enough in the time it took you to write your post telling me to go look it up.

Did you see that I edited my post to provide a link for you?  I'm here to discuss what I believe, mainly, not to speak for the whole Church.  And I wouldn't say something unless I believed it.

[Ahab]

27 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Yes, I understand that. My question is, on Nov 1, 1831 how many members of the church were there? How many separate and distinct wards were there? How many stakes? What would the meaning or purpose of the word "collectively" be for such a small group of folks located in one small geographic area? According to the wikipedia website the church had 680 members in total in 1831. It is hard (for me) to reconcile such an interpretation for such a tiny group of people. There must be a greater distinction that Christ had in mind when He said He was speaking to the church collectively versus individually. I am not trying just to debate. I really genuinely want to understand this verse better. Apparently an LDS urologist from the SLC area gave a talk last year at the Sunstone conference on this very issue. I would love to get a copy of it. I could also use his advice on . . . well let's just say I am over 70 years old! Ha!

Have you read Doctrine & Covenants section 1 recently?  I think reading it now will help to answer your questions.  Yes the church was then very small in numbers, and I think our Lord referred to that fact when saying his commandments were given to those he commanded so that they might have power to lay the foundation of this church and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth with which the Lord was well pleased. speaking unto the church collectively and not to individual members.  See verse 30 in Doctrine & Covenants section 1   https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/1?lang=eng

Before the church was restored the true church of Christ was not upon the earth, and when our Lord began his work to restore his true church to the earth it rose from very humble beginnings, out of obscurity and out of darkness, with just a few members.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Ahab

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Yes, I understand that. My question is, on Nov 1, 1831 how many members of the church were there? How many separate and distinct wards were there? How many stakes? What would the meaning or purpose of the word "collectively" be for such a small group of folks located in one small geographic area? According to the wikipedia website the church had 680 members in total in 1831. It is hard (for me) to reconcile such an interpretation for such a tiny group of people. There must be a greater distinction that Christ had in mind when He said He was speaking to the church collectively versus individually. I am not trying just to debate. I really genuinely want to understand this verse better. Apparently an LDS urologist from the SLC area gave a talk last year at the Sunstone conference on this very issue. I would love to get a copy of it. I could also use his advice on . . . well let's just say I am over 70 years old! Ha!

I think He was speaking of the Church then, now and future. But if one takes Him to be speaking of the general, collective Christian faith/church, His sayings are still just as valid.

Posted 3 hours ago (edited)

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by CV75

[filovirus]

What is doctrine? That should be the first question. Is the law of tithing considered doctrine? To some yes, to others no. Hence we can all have different answers to the question: Does doctrine change? But, I believe that "Divine Truth" does not change. When people say the doctrine is unchanging, I think what they actually refer to is divine truth. So it is in the semantics of the word that people can have different interpretations on if doctrine changes or not.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

Yesterday after Elder's Quorum I mentioned in a one-on-one conversation with a friend about LDS doctrine changing. He assured me that LDS doctrine never changes. My wife was waiting (semi-patiently) so I didn't want to get into a big discussion about it especially as the Spanish speaking ward was entering the chapel for their sacrament service. Now I bring it to you all . . . what is the correct term or terms to use about evolution in LDS doctrine caused by additional revelations or statements by leaders that can replace, amend, change (sorry), add to, or supplement existing or previously held doctrine? I don't want to use a term that is offensive or dismissed as my friend dismissed the word "change."

Perhaps the challenge is in the use of the word "doctrine?" It is complicated. Words like "new," "added," "amended," "changed," "lost" (blood atonement for example, which some will assert never was a doctrine), the manifestos, some of the Pratt/Young writings, etc. What is the best terminology to use when discussing these doctrinal variations in the church? I am not even sure how to ask the question without using certain terms! Is the removal of the Lectures on Faith from the D&C in 1921 by the Talmage Committee a doctrinal amendment? Weren't they the original "doctrine" part of the Doctrine and Covenants? Isn't their exclusion a doctrinal change, amendment, or ?????? Here I go again! 

Excellent questions and observations all, Phil.  However, many of the so-called "doctrines" are often just speculations or theories based on some other statement (canonical or not), in turn based on some other statement, and so on in an infinite regress.  Moreover, some of the documents you refer to are not necessarily primary.  The Lectures on Faith, for example, represented the theological system and understanding of Sidney Rigdon, the primary author.  His influence on the Inspired Revision of the Bible is also an issue, as is the influence of Adam Clarke's commentary.  We need to understand our sources better.

Since you have done exegesis, and since you have seen others do it, you know very well that biblical interpretation is tough and likely to bring an array of divergent views.  Indeed, many interpretive matrices or paradigms include some fundamental assumptions about the ultimate nature of reality, the nature of Scripture, and even the nature of God and the cosmos.  On the one hand, (1) we have modern biblical studies at the professional, university level.  On the other, (2) we have prayers of faith, and understanding based on the influence of the Holy Spirit.  Canonical scripture itself insists that it may only be properly interpreted by the Holy Spirit which gave it in the first place.  (3) Evangelicals reject that notion, preferring to simply read the text and allow that to do all the interpreting necessary.  Those three methods may be at loggerheads sometimes, and that is likely the best explanation for rampant denominationalism.

Joseph Smith taught that all the denominations were wrong, and that they lacked authority from God.  To many, Joseph's Restoration was merely another in a long line of denominational offshoots of Christianity, itself an offshoot of Judaism (along with prophetic Islam).  Which leaves you with a major epistemological problem:  How can we know what we know?  Is it even possible to know anything for sure?  If there is no way to know anything, then our efforts are of no value.  That is the existential dilemma.  Do you have a solution?

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, filovirus said:

What is doctrine? That should be the first question. Is the law of tithing considered doctrine? To some yes, to others no. Hence we can all have different answers to the question: Does doctrine change? But, I believe that "Divine Truth" does not change. When people say the doctrine is unchanging, I think what they actually refer to is divine truth. So it is in the semantics of the word that people can have different interpretations on if doctrine changes or not.

Of course.  Some people probably think that the late B. R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine was actually a true exposition of "Mormon doctrine."  Yet, Elder McConkie himself declared later that he had gotten some things (on race, for example) completely wrong.  He said that he spoke without light and knowledge.  Indeed, he had to make some major changes in the second edition, long before 1978.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I've tried to make this point before. I don't see the LDS claim to on-going or continuing revelation as unique. Definitions differ, but on a practical level it seems like LDS and Catholics both believe in the same thing: a church that is led by inspiration. It can be a little underwhelming, honestly, when I hear the word "revelation" used to things such as changing to a 2 hour meeting, changing missionary age requirements, policy changes in the handbook, etc. That is stuff that the Pope and the bishops do all the time, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who we believe leads and protects Holy Mother Church.

People can and do use terms such as "revelation" rather loosely.  One doesn't hear Methodists speak of revelation when they make such minor changes in curriculum or meeting schedules.  The better term among LDS might be "inspiration."

14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Revelation from a modern prophet sounds much loftier than the actual examples of it. In practice, it seems to be what most Christians believe.

Among Roman Catholics and Pentecostals there may be actual belief in the Holy Spirit, but I seldom hear that from mainline Protestants.  They even denounce the idea on occasion (perhaps for debate points).  For them the Holy Spirit is just not accessible.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Church teachings related to this list have changed repeatedly over the decades.

Whether that changes doctrine is dependent on how we are defining doctrine I suppose.

You are correct to reference it as a "list," because that was all it was.  Presumably there is only one truth about each of those items listed.  Human opinions may vary (and they certainly do), but that in no way changes the truth.  So each item must be defined in order to even begin a discussion on whether it can or has changed through time.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/24/2020 at 1:54 PM, MiserereNobis said:

LDS friends, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that LDS do not really have an ecclesiology. To them, "the Church" refers solely to the LDS religion and organization, without belief in a greater Christian "church."

In Catholicism, the Catholic Church is made up of 24 churches. I remember thinking how weird that sounded when I first learned it, until I read up a little on Catholic ecclesiology.

I may have mentioned this before, some time ago, but it is true that the LDS Church has no official systematic theology -- bound volumes to which it can turn -- and no approved canon lawyers to consult with.  However, the NT notion of the Church as the Bride of Christ, or as the Body of Christ, would not be a problem for the Brethren (LDS Church leaders).  How they would respond to the division of everything into the City of God versus the City of Man (all in one single city), I am not sure, but it does fit in with the Book of Mormon division into twain -- which someone has just mentioned to you.

The LDS concept of "church" would necessarily be a unitary, covenant community, including all baptized members and those born in the covenant, and may be extended to those on the other side of the veil who were God's people, and any who have accepted their proxy ordinances -- as a universalist aside, this would potentially include nearly all people who ever lived.  This is the same notion which collectively included all members of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, the covenant community often termed the Congregation of Israel.  Thus, the real Church collectively includes billions.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

[Navidad]

25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Excellent questions and observations all, Phil.  However, many of the so-called "doctrines" are often just speculations or theories based on some other statement (canonical or not), in turn based on some other statement, and so on in an infinite regress.  Moreover, some of the documents you refer to are not necessarily primary.  The Lectures on Faith, for example, represented the theological system and understanding of Sidney Rigdon, the primary author.  His influence on the Inspired Revision of the Bible is also an issue, as is the influence of Adam Clarke's commentary.  We need to understand our sources better.

Since you have done exegesis, and since you have seen others do it, you know very well that biblical interpretation is tough and likely to bring an array of divergent views.  Indeed, many interpretive matrices or paradigms include some fundamental assumptions about the ultimate nature of reality, the nature of Scripture, and even the nature of God and the cosmos.  On the one hand, (1) we have modern biblical studies at the professional, university level.  On the other, (2) we have prayers of faith, and understanding based on the influence of the Holy Spirit.  Canonical scripture itself insists that it may only be properly interpreted by the Holy Spirit which gave it in the first place.  (3) Evangelicals reject that notion, preferring to simply read the text and allow that to do all the interpreting necessary.  Those three methods may be at loggerheads sometimes, and that is likely the best explanation for rampant denominationalism.

Joseph Smith taught that all the denominations were wrong, and that they lacked authority from God.  To many, Joseph's Restoration was merely another in a long line of denominational offshoots of Christianity, itself an offshoot of Judaism (along with prophetic Islam).  Which leaves you with a major epistemological problem:  How can we know what we know?  Is it even possible to know anything for sure?  If there is no way to know anything, then our efforts are of no value.  That is the existential dilemma.  Do you have a solution?

Thanks for your most excellent reply. Let me reply in my own way . . . I live in a tiny village in the high desert of Chihuahua. The salvation of the economy here has been the development of a magnificent art form centered on pottery. Clay is dug from the mountains, cleaned, filtered, washed, formed into shapes, polished, sanded, painted, carved and fired under great heat. One can buy a piece of pottery for $5 here. One can also buy a piece of our pottery in a gallery in Santa Fe for $35,000. We probably have 400 people in the village of 1,200 involved in some way in pottery production. The one thing in common they will all tell you is that working with the clay is la lucha - the battle. Using shovels, pickaxes, dental pics, human hair, tire spokes, cow dung, electricity, and so on, they battle with the clay to produce a world class thing of beauty. A significant percentage of time they fail. The pot breaks, cracks, or is shattered at some part of the process. They begin again and try again. Hours, days, weeks, and sometimes months are spent in la lucha to make one piece. 

Please, I mean no offense in what I am trying to say. What frustrates me so very much about LDS teaching, exposition, hermeneutics, exegesis, etc. is the lack of la lucha. It is something similar to what I see at times in Pentecostalism. I know because I feel. Or sometimes it reminds of non-LDS fundamentalism - I know because I am told what to know by the one with authority. Don't get me wrong. I love the box of kleenex on the podium. Whether man or woman, where would we be in testimony time without the box? I am deeply touched when I see big strong cattlemen, tough rodeo riders weep from the pulpit. That is the highlight of the service for me. It reminds me so of the roughhewn Mennonite farmers of my childhood.

What I miss is la lucha: the struggle, fight, determination, study to understand and rightly divide the Word of God that I learned to love in the library, the classroom - poring over the texts sometimes all night to grasp its meaning. Someone here suggested that I read Section 1 of the D&C. I smiled and sighed. There hasn't been a day in two years (that I remember) that I haven't read D&C 1. Understanding it is the key to understanding many LDS positions and yes, doctrines. Oh, and I have lost la lucha especially about verse 30 in its entirety.  I am frustrated by the lack of source material to further my understanding. God speaks to us in la lucha. La Lucha is the source of revelation. Pondering just doesn't cut it for me - not for the great truths of Scripture; not for something as important as doctrine.  Again, don't get me wrong. I love the great devotional literature of all traditions. It is quieting and relaxing. La lucha is sometimes neither. Beautiful thoughts and understandings come out of it. Sometimes one must start all over again and try once more to understand.

I have frustrated many of you because of my persistent questioning. "Why don't you understand? I just told you how it is! Why not read the General Conference April 2008 talk? That will tell you what to think." I read it. It is a devotional - not an exegesis. It isn't la lucha that I love.  It isn't an expository sermon worthy of Charles Haddon Spurgeon of my tradition, or of the great doctors of the Catholic Church that lasts an hour and covers the possible meanings of three words in a verse.

To some degree the lack of la lucha in LDS exegesis reminds me of the famous epigram by Werenfels: "Hic liber est in quo sua quærit dogmata quisque. Invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sua." Roughly translated in poetic form, it means: "Men open this book, their favorite creed in mind; Each seeks his own, and each his own doth find." That is not la lucha! At least not to me. This is why I keep coming back here. This is why I keep trying to understand. All the great fathers of the LDS faith are largely ignored because of the dogma that current prophets are better than former prophets. So, interpretations keep on being modified (better than change?). The Holy Spirit leads the prophets (at least until there are new prophets with different interpretations, suggestions, ideas, etc.), the prophets tell the folks what to believe, the folks faithfully believe, and no one engages in la lucha. I am longing to hear ten different possible interpretations of D&C 1:30 so that I can struggle my way through each of them, using my God-given spiritual and intellectual resources to figure out the best of the ten, with as few preconceptions as possible. That is the essence of la lucha. It is hard work and sometimes it cracks - but sometimes produces a beautiful result! 

[Navidad]

8 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Somehow I posted my reply twice. Sorry!

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by Navidad
Error in posting

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for your most excellent reply. Let me reply in my own way . . . I live in a tiny village in the high desert of Chihuahua. The salvation of the economy here has been the development of a magnificent art form centered on pottery. Clay is dug from the mountains, cleaned, filtered, washed, formed into shapes, polished, sanded, painted, carved and fired under great heat. One can buy a piece of pottery for $5 here. One can also buy a piece of our pottery in a gallery in Santa Fe for $35,000. We probably have 400 people in the village of 1,200 involved in some way in pottery production. The one thing in common they will all tell you is that working with the clay is la lucha - the battle. Using shovels, pickaxes, dental pics, human hair, tire spokes, cow dung, electricity, and so on, they battle with the clay to produce a world class thing of beauty. A significant percentage of time they fail. The pot breaks, cracks, or is shattered at some part of the process. They begin again and try again. Hours, days, weeks, and sometimes months are spent in la lucha to make one piece. 

Please, I mean no offense in what I am trying to say. What frustrates me so very much about LDS teaching, exposition, hermeneutics, exegesis, etc. is the lack of la lucha. It is something similar to what I see at times in Pentecostalism. I know because I feel. Or sometimes it reminds of non-LDS fundamentalism - I know because I am told what to know by the one with authority. Don't get me wrong. I love the box of kleenex on the podium. Whether man or woman, where would we be in testimony time without the box? I am deeply touched when I see big strong cattlemen, tough rodeo riders weep from the pulpit. That is the highlight of the service for me. It reminds me so of the roughhewn Mennonite farmers of my childhood.

What I miss is la lucha: the struggle, fight, determination, study to understand and rightly divide the Word of God that I learned to love in the library, the classroom - poring over the texts sometimes all night to grasp its meaning. Someone here suggested that I read Section 1 of the D&C. I smiled and sighed. There hasn't been a day in two years (that I remember) that I haven't read D&C 1. Understanding it is the key to understanding many LDS positions and yes, doctrines. Oh, and I have lost la lucha especially about verse 30 in its entirety.  I am frustrated by the lack of source material to further my understanding. God speaks to us in la lucha. La Lucha is the source of revelation. Pondering just doesn't cut it for me - not for the great truths of Scripture; not for something as important as doctrine.  Again, don't get me wrong. I love the great devotional literature of all traditions. It is quieting and relaxing. La lucha is sometimes neither. Beautiful thoughts and understandings come out of it. Sometimes one must start all over again and try once more to understand.

I have frustrated many of you because of my persistent questioning. "Why don't you understand? I just told you how it is! Why not read the General Conference April 2008 talk? That will tell you what to think." I read it. It is a devotional - not an exegesis. It isn't la lucha that I love.  It isn't an expository sermon worthy of Charles Haddon Spurgeon of my tradition, or of the great doctors of the Catholic Church that lasts an hour and covers the possible meanings of three words in a verse.

To some degree the lack of la lucha in LDS exegesis reminds me of the famous epigram by Werenfels: "Hic liber est in quo sua quærit dogmata quisque. Invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sua." Roughly translated in poetic form, it means: "Men open this book, their favorite creed in mind; Each seeks his own, and each his own doth find." That is not la lucha! At least not to me. This is why I keep coming back here. This is why I keep trying to understand. All the great fathers of the LDS faith are largely ignored because of the dogma that current prophets are better than former prophets. So, interpretations keep on being modified (better than change?). The Holy Spirit leads the prophets (at least until there are new prophets with different interpretations, suggestions, ideas, etc.), the prophets tell the folks what to believe, the folks faithfully believe, and no one engages in la lucha. I am longing to hear ten different possible interpretations of D&C 1:30 so that I can struggle my way through each of them, using my God-given spiritual and intellectual resources to figure out the best of the ten, with as few preconceptions as possible. That is the essence of la lucha. It is hard work and sometimes it cracks - but sometimes produces a beautiful result! 

I believe that God is able to speak to each of us without the philosophies of men. That is precisely why I quit academic philosophy, while ironically following the Neopragmatist paradigm.

We eschew theology also precisely for that reason. Theology is not orthopraxis.

Yet some criticize us for our exclusivity, while yet preaching their own brand of elitism.

Edited February 25, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for your most excellent reply. Let me reply in my own way . . . I live in a tiny village in the high desert of Chihuahua. The salvation of the economy here has been the development of a magnificent art form centered on pottery. Clay is dug from the mountains, cleaned, filtered, washed, formed into shapes, polished, sanded, painted, carved and fired under great heat. One can buy a piece of pottery for $5 here. One can also buy a piece of our pottery in a gallery in Santa Fe for $35,000. We probably have 400 people in the village of 1,200 involved in some way in pottery production. The one thing in common they will all tell you is that working with the clay is la lucha - the battle. Using shovels, pickaxes, dental pics, human hair, tire spokes, cow dung, electricity, and so on, they battle with the clay to produce a world class thing of beauty. A significant percentage of time they fail. The pot breaks, cracks, or is shattered at some part of the process. They begin again and try again. Hours, days, weeks, and sometimes months are spent in la lucha to make one piece. 

Please, I mean no offense in what I am trying to say. What frustrates me so very much about LDS teaching, exposition, hermeneutics, exegesis, etc. is the lack of la lucha. It is something similar to what I see at times in Pentecostalism. I know because I feel. Or sometimes it reminds of non-LDS fundamentalism - I know because I am told what to know by the one with authority. Don't get me wrong. I love the box of kleenex on the podium. Whether man or woman, where would we be in testimony time without the box? I am deeply touched when I see big strong cattlemen, tough rodeo riders weep from the pulpit. That is the highlight of the service for me. It reminds me so of the roughhewn Mennonite farmers of my childhood.

What I miss is la lucha: the struggle, fight, determination, study to understand and rightly divide the Word of God that I learned to love in the library, the classroom - poring over the texts sometimes all night to grasp its meaning. Someone here suggested that I read Section 1 of the D&C. I smiled and sighed. There hasn't been a day in two years (that I remember) that I haven't read D&C 1. Understanding it is the key to understanding many LDS positions and yes, doctrines. Oh, and I have lost la lucha especially about verse 30 in its entirety.  I am frustrated by the lack of source material to further my understanding. God speaks to us in la lucha. La Lucha is the source of revelation. Pondering just doesn't cut it for me - not for the great truths of Scripture; not for something as important as doctrine.  Again, don't get me wrong. I love the great devotional literature of all traditions. It is quieting and relaxing. La lucha is sometimes neither. Beautiful thoughts and understandings come out of it. Sometimes one must start all over again and try once more to understand.

I have frustrated many of you because of my persistent questioning. "Why don't you understand? I just told you how it is! Why not read the General Conference April 2008 talk? That will tell you what to think." I read it. It is a devotional - not an exegesis. It isn't la lucha that I love.  It isn't an expository sermon worthy of Charles Haddon Spurgeon of my tradition, or of the great doctors of the Catholic Church that lasts an hour and covers the possible meanings of three words in a verse.

To some degree the lack of la lucha in LDS exegesis reminds me of the famous epigram by Werenfels: "Hic liber est in quo sua quærit dogmata quisque. Invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sua." Roughly translated in poetic form, it means: "Men open this book, their favorite creed in mind; Each seeks his own, and each his own doth find." That is not la lucha! At least not to me. This is why I keep coming back here. This is why I keep trying to understand. All the great fathers of the LDS faith are largely ignored because of the dogma that current prophets are better than former prophets. So, interpretations keep on being modified (better than change?). The Holy Spirit leads the prophets (at least until there are new prophets with different interpretations, suggestions, ideas, etc.), the prophets tell the folks what to believe, the folks faithfully believe, and no one engages in la lucha. I am longing to hear ten different possible interpretations of D&C 1:30 so that I can struggle my way through each of them, using my God-given spiritual and intellectual resources to figure out the best of the ten, with as few preconceptions as possible. That is the essence of la lucha. It is hard work and sometimes it cracks - but sometimes produces a beautiful result! 

Brother, I think you're doing it wrong.  Getting the right/correct/true idea, or any of the several that are possible sometimes when there is more than one correct/right/true way to understand something, doesn't have to be a battle or at least not a big or long battle.  I simply ask God in prayer while pondering and ruminating over the ideas I have in my mind, and then I just pay attention as God speaks to me in his still small voice until I understand what he is saying to me.  It really is as simple as that. And I don't need to get every correct idea there is about something to come away with a correct/true/right idea that will help me to understand something better.  It's enough for me to know that in D&C 1:30 our Lord was saying The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true and living church on the earth and that he was well pleased with the Church, collectively, not referring to how he felt about individual members of it.  Probably because The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the only church He was helping to establish through his priesthood, while every other church on the planet was a false/apostate/illegitimate and dead church that he was not pleased with, collectively speaking, not referring to how he felt about individual members of those false/apostate/illegitimate and dead churches.

But go ahead if you want to, make it a battle.  Kick against the pricks as much as you want to.  The Saul who became the apostle Paul resisted a lot but eventually he saw the Light. I don't suggest holding your breath while waiting for our Lord to appear to you, though.

Most of us have to settle for doing the best we can to understand and accept the whispering still small voice.of the Spirit of God, but at least we don't have to work at understanding what is true without that.

[Tacenda]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I believe that God is able to speak to each of us without the philosophies of men. That is precisely why I quit academic philosophy, while ironically following the Neopragmatist paradigm.

We eschew theology also precisely for that reason. Theology is not orthopraxis.

Yet some criticize us for our exclusivity, while yet preaching their own brand of superiority.

I listened to a podcast this morning that made me think of you. I thought it was excellent, and might help keep people like me and others in the church. I can't c/p at the moment but if you google: Mormon Philosophy Simplified: An Easy Logical Approach to Classic Philosophical Questions. The podcast was on Sunstone Symposium episode 54.

  

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

......................................
 What frustrates me so very much about LDS teaching, exposition, hermeneutics, exegesis, etc. is the lack of la lucha. It is something similar to what I see at times in Pentecostalism. .......................

Speaking about "LDS...exposition, hermeneutics, exegesis" seems a bit oxymoronic to me.  Not sure that those activities are really part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Not that there are no LDS scholars capable of that sort of thing, but that is not part of official LDS Church activity, and one certainly hears none of that during LDS Conferences.  Mainline Protestants are not at all happy with the approach of either the Pentecostals or the Mormons.  Why?  Because they emphasize that pesky Paraclete. 

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

What I miss is la lucha: the struggle, fight, determination, study to understand and rightly divide the Word of God that I learned to love in the library, the classroom - poring over the texts sometimes all night to grasp its meaning. Someone here suggested that I read Section 1 of the D&C. I smiled and sighed. There hasn't been a day in two years (that I remember) that I haven't read D&C 1. Understanding it is the key to understanding many LDS positions and yes, doctrines. Oh, and I have lost la lucha especially about verse 30 in its entirety.  I am frustrated by the lack of source material to further my understanding. God speaks to us in la lucha. La Lucha is the source of revelation. Pondering just doesn't cut it for me - not for the great truths of Scripture; not for something as important as doctrine.  Again, don't get me wrong. I love the great devotional literature of all traditions. It is quieting and relaxing. La lucha is sometimes neither. Beautiful thoughts and understandings come out of it. Sometimes one must start all over again and try once more to understand.

That tracks the Hindu understanding that differentiates pundits from prophets.

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

...................................... an expository sermon worthy of Charles Haddon Spurgeon of my tradition, or of the great doctors of the Catholic Church that lasts an hour and covers the possible meanings of three words in a verse.
.............................................. I am longing to hear ten different possible interpretations of D&C 1:30 so that I can struggle my way through each of them, using my God-given spiritual and intellectual resources to figure out the best of the ten, with as few preconceptions as possible. That is the essence of la lucha. It is hard work and sometimes it cracks ....................

All of us bring preconceptions and apriori notions to our study of the Word of God.  Some of us believe that God gave us brains so that we would use them.  Joseph Smith thought that the study of Hebrew was a very good idea, and he pursued that vigorously, hiring a Jewish Hebrew teacher to instruct him and his Brethren in Kirtland.  Later Joseph had a Jewish convert in Nauvoo (the greatgrandfather of Hugh Nibley) to advise him.  I spent years at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem studying biblical Hebrew and archeology, among other things.  Thought it might help me better understand Scripture.  And you are right:  It is hard work.  And time consuming.  I started out in the mid-60s, and am still at it.

[pogi]

18 hours ago, Navidad said:

Yes, I understand that. My question is, on Nov 1, 1831 how many members of the church were there? How many separate and distinct wards were there? How many stakes? What would the meaning or purpose of the word "collectively" be for such a small group of folks located in one small geographic area? According to the wikipedia website the church had 680 members in total in 1831.

What if I said that this forum is the only forum with which I am well pleased, speaking collectively and not individually?  Makes sense right?  I am pleased with the forum as a whole ("collectively"), but not necessarily with each individual member.  There are much fewer members of this forum then there were members in the church in 1831, and yet it still makes sense.  I am having a hard time understanding your hang-up here. 

Edited February 25, 2020 by pogi

[Ahab]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

What if I said that this forum is the only forum with which I am well pleased, speaking collectively and not individually?  Makes sense right?  I am pleased with the forum as a whole ("collectively"), but not necessarily with each individual member.  There are much fewer members of this forum then there were in the church in 1831, and yet it still makes sense.  I am having a hard time understanding your hang-up here. 

f I were to venture a guess, I would say he is having a hard time understanding why God would not say he was well pleased with members of apostate/false/illegitimate and dead churches if they were trying their best to be good Christians.

And I would answer that by saying God wasn't talking about individual members of churches, but rather about the churches, collectively, as distinct organizations that did not have his priesthood, even though many members wanted to be good Christians.

 

edited to add:  Or another guess, since he seems to be someone who believes in an invisible church which he believes all Christians are members of regardless of which particular Christian church they are a member of, why God didn't mention that idea when talking about the only true and living Church which God is well pleased with.

And I would answer that by saying that he doesn't quite understand the correct concept of what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints really is.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I listened to a podcast this morning that made me think of you. I thought it was excellent, and might help keep people like me and others in the church. I can't c/p at the moment but if you google: Mormon Philosophy Simplified: An Easy Logical Approach to Classic Philosophical Questions. The podcast was on Sunstone Symposium episode 54.

  

Thanks for pointing this out. I listen to the podcast was very interesting. I wish they had gotten into some of the meat of it and some of the actual philosophy but I certainly agree with the direction! Thanks!

[The Nehor]

On 2/24/2020 at 2:46 PM, Navidad said:

Of course that is the whole quote. Without wanting to get the thread off track - I have always thought it interesting that I have never heard a talk about the last phrase in that verse. Those words and their meaning are so important - "speaking unto the church collectively and not individually." This was a 1831 revelation, very soon after the church was founded. There were not many in the church at this point in time. There were even fewer wards, branches, or sites at that time. I would like to offer a hermeneutic that suggests that Christ was saying that "the only true and living church" with which he was well-pleased was the collective Christian church - the great Christian community which in 1831 was pretty robust. That makes sense with the notation that He was speaking "unto the church collectively (the larger Christian church as a whole) and not individually (the tiny church that had just been founded some short months before)! How could the word "collectively" make any sense in a 1831 LDS church context? Context and chronology are important, no? 

OK, I didn't think anyone would agree with me! 😃

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Navidad]

Thanks for all your replies. I am constantly fascinated by how we seem to regularly be talking past each other. We each have our a priori biases and beliefs about each other that hamper our communications. We also are limited by the monological nature of the communication on the forum. It is too bad we don’t have live chat ability. That might help.

At any rate, I seem to be entertaining some, frustrating others, and providing fodder for psychoanalysis by others. Perhaps my illustration of La Lucha was not a good one. I simply believe that Scriptural interpretation involves a lot of work. It also provides wonderful potential for insight into the Scripture. Without writing another treatise, let me simply state that I heartily believe in the direction and leading of the Holy Spirit in the correct interpretation of Scriptures. I understand that your collective doctrine does not allow you to believe that I have the gift of the Holy Ghost (Spirit) absent an LDS baptism. Let us simply and cordially agree to disagree on that. It is a distancing mechanism disguised as a doctrine. I think I understand your collective need for such a doctrine,  I simply don’t agree with you. I have lived as a spirit-filled Christian for too long to be dissuaded by such doctrines of those who don’t even know me. Someone in our ward once assured me, “It isn’t personal.” He could not be any more wrong. Denying me the reality of my entire Christian life as led by the Spirit is a very personal thing.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon, a great Evangelical preacher who I quoted before said it better than I am able, “If you do not understand a book by a departed writer you are unable to ask him his meaning, but the Spirit, who inspired Holy Scripture, lives forever, and He delights to open the Word to those who seek His instruction.” While I cannot speak for all Evangelicals, I can assure you that this Evangelical has the highest regard for the work of the Spirit in Scriptural interpretation. Professor Roy Zuck from the Evangelical Dallas Seminary has identified five elements he believes are necessary to interpret the Scriptures correctly. The five are:

1. Salvation

2. Spiritual Maturity

3. Diligent Study

4. Common Sense

5. Humble Dependence on the Spirit for Discernment

I agree with these. You might vary in your agreement with them. That is ok with me! The hierarchy of the LDS Church includes the role of a teacher stemming from Eph 4. I would guess that indicates that you believe that teachers are useful. I agree. I believe that Scriptural exegesis is a discipline that, under the direction of the Holy Spirit can be taught, learned and practiced with differing levels of skill and insight. We may disagree there. I am not sure. Luke 24 teaches us that Christ opened minds to enable them to understand the Scriptures. Therefore, there must be an enabling and an understanding involved in rightly dividing the Word of Truth.  
Perhaps all this discussion and dialogue is for naught as the “doctrine” of the LDS Church is firm that absent an LDS baptism and confirmation one cannot have the gift of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, I do not have the gift of the Holy Spirit and therefore neither I nor anyone else on this forum who has not experienced the ordinances by proper authority are those whose thoughts should be taken seriously. At least by my hanging around a bit, I and my misguided belief in La Lucha as the calling, task, and privilege of the believer in Christ has some entertainment value for you all. At least that gives me a role to fill.