"Mormon Doctrine" Elders Peterson & McConkie, Expertise and Interpretation- Ben Spackman

[mfbukowski]

I thought this was a great post that I found on Ben Spackman's website and I thought I would quote it here in its entirety - hope that breaks no rules.   It expresses opinions which are very close to mine as well, not surprisingly 

The title is in a large typeface in the original, but on this board it would take up too much space, but the largest type size postable here is 12 points, so it looks tiny here.  

This idea is one which needs to be repeated over and over again- that EVERY text- scriptures and statements by prophets and General Authorities included, are inevitably products of the culture, language, and times of the author and need to be interpreted as such.

I heartily recommend pretty much all of Ben's opinions and find his website to be an important voice in LDS studies.   https://benspackman.com/2020/10/23/mark-e-petersen-expertise-interpretation-and-mcconkies-mormon-doctrine/

 

Quote

 

Mark E. Petersen, Expertise, Interpretation, and McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine

OCTOBER 23, 2020BEN S

Many people are aware that Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s book Mormon Doctrine was not universally received among Church leadership as a positive thing. That story has been told in a number of places, from a number of perspectives. This, however, was new to me, summarizing from this article and expanding from the McKay diaries, around Jan 14, 1960.

In 1960, the First Presidency assigned Elder Mark E. Petersen— himself a very conservative Apostle and former journalist, who authored the editorials in the Church News— to write a magazine editorial intended to go Church-wide. His assigned topic was the “principle of approval of books on Church doctrine,” which took subtle and not-so-subtle aim at Mormon Doctrine. After President McKay conferenced with Joseph Fielding Smith—McConkie’s father-in-law and the President of the Quorum of the Twelve— it was not published.

But the draft exists in the archives. Note the emphasis on the necessity of expertise and the danger of shallow certainty.

Persons without the necessary background, and far from being expert in their fields at times undertake to make authoritative statements which mislead many, and which too often do not represent the accepted facts.

At times members of the General Authorities of the Church have published such material, some of which has been misunderstood, some being actually inaccurate or speculative…. Those publications should not be accepted by a discriminating public as the official views or doctrines of the Church, nor even as being representative of the Church.

One such book was the recently published “Mormon Doctrine” by Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the First Council of the Seventy. This volume presumes to give the final word on many doctrines of the Church, some of which have never been completely explained even in the revelations. [President McKay suggested removing the reference to Mormon Doctrine]

There’s a bit of historical irony here; Elder Petersen wrote the Foreword to Smith’s Man, His Origin and Destiny, a broadside against organic evolution. Smith fits Petersen’s description exactly, as “far from expert in the field” and “making authoritative statements which do not represent the accepted facts.” Smith, of course, was “far from expert in the fields” of biology, geology,  zoology, etc. and leaned heavily on Seventh-day Adventist and fundamentalist sources. And he made bluntly  binary authoritative statements, which did not represent accepted facts, which continue to cause problems today.

That irony aside, I have wondered if Elder Paul Johnson (currently the Commissioner of Church Education) had Mormon Doctrine in mind when he said,

Many of us have a difficult time dealing with ambiguity, especially in issues concerning the Church. In fact, we may be drawn to use quotes in our teaching that are definitive because they seem to dispel the ambiguity. But some quotes are definitive on issues where there is no official answer. People who are more tentative on a subject that hasn’t been revealed or resolved don’t get quoted as much, but may be more in line with where our current knowledge is.

The David O. McKay diaries detail the Apostolic review of Mormon Doctrine; many of its criticisms were that McConkie provided authoritative certainties where the Church officially had not.

“Declaration as to ‘Mormon Doctrine’ on Controversial Issues” including: Pre-adamites [tied directly to questions of the age of the earth, death before the fall, and evolution], the status of animals and plants in the garden of eden, and the meaning of the various accounts of creation.

Now, here’s where interpretation comes in. Whatever the text— canonized scripture, historical texts, or earlier teachings of LDS leaders— no one can get away from the fact that we have to interpret them. Interpretation of anything is a human process, dependent upon our own historical, contextual, cultural, and linguistic assumptions and knowledge.

Even the English language and LDS terminology have shifted significantly just since Joseph Smith and the D&C (to say nothing of the KJV), which sometimes leads us to misunderstand while thinking the meaning is clear and obvious. “Plain” language is often neither plain nor sufficient in order to understand what Isaiah or Joseph Smith meant. We need good information to interpret.

This principle was preached by Elder Stephen L. Richards, in April 1932 General Conference and a different talk in the June 1933 Improvement Era  (post).

“The revelations of the new dispensation, as well as those of the Bible, were in the beginning and are now interpreted by men, and men can interpret only in the light of human experience and understanding.”

 

“In the interpretation of scripture and doctrine [Church leaders] are dependent on their knowledge and experience.”

 

“Old conceptions and traditional interpretations must be influenced by newly discovered evidence. Not that ultimate fact and law change, but our understanding varies with our education and experience.”

Elder Petersen says, in critique of Mormon Doctrine,

This volume presumes to give the final word on many doctrines of the Church, some of which have never been completely explained even in the revelations.

The messy crux here is this: Whereas President McKay (and others) felt revelation and scripture were unclear on a topic, Elder McConkie (and others) felt scripture was simple and clear on topic X and thus felt free to declare such. And they felt differently because they interpreted differently on the basis of differing assumptions, differing experience, and knowledge.

Frequently, those who felt it was “simple and obvious” relied on “plain language” approaches to scripture in which external information was largely irrelevant for understanding; scripture was sufficient for understanding scripture. Moreover, they implicitly denied that they were doing any interpretation; rather they were simply telling you “what scripture said” and you were dodging the “plain meaning,” which is a fundamentalist trope called “naive literalism.” (In general, see my post here)

But returning to the documents, there is some historical irony. Elder Petersen, who, again, had endorsed Man, His Origin and Destiny, critiqued Mormon Doctrine on the basis of McConkie lacking

 the necessary background, and far from being expert in their fields at times undertake to make authoritative statements

According to the Arrington journals, Elder McConkie in turn had potential issues with Curriculum and Correlation around the idea of expertise and training.

“We have to write history. We cannot avoid that responsibility. And as long as we have to do it, we have to get competent professional people. We cannot expect it to be done by an eighth-grade Sunday School teacher or someone not trained.”

Indeed, the Correlation committee, in evaluating historical materials, should not be asked to do something

“they were not prepared by training or knowledge to do.”

Fortunately, I think we have learned, and are learning. Note the strong professionalization and expertise of history and history-writing in the Gospel Topics essays, in Saints, in the Joseph Smith Papers, and the Church History Library. Note also the rhetoric from Elder Ballard (repeatedly) about expertise, and President Nelson’s implicit call for expertise in the statement “good inspiration is based on good information.”

I look forward to the day this move extends into writing our scriptural manuals and not merely our historical ones.

 

 

 

[Bob Crockett]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This idea is one which needs to be repeated over and over again- that EVERY text- scriptures and statements by prophets and General Authorities included, are inevitably products of the culture, language, and times of the author and need to be interpreted as such.

 

I don't believe this premise to be correct.   When I was 18 I had a 75-year-old hometeaching companion, and he would refer to blacks with the "N" word when visiting with families with small children.  Wrong then.  Wrong now. 

Edited November 6, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[Ahab]

17 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't believe this premise to be correct.   When I was 18 I had a 75-year-old hometeaching companion, and he would refer to blacks with the "N" word when visiting with families with small children.  Wrong then.  Wrong now. 

This statement applies to people who are not prophets and General authorities too:  "scriptures and statements by prophets and General Authorities included, are inevitably products of the culture, language, and times of the author and need to be interpreted as such.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't believe this premise to be correct.   When I was 18 I had a 75-year-old hometeaching companion, and he would refer to blacks with the "N" word when visiting with families with small children.  Wrong then.  Wrong now. 

I think this is in fact perfect evidence FOR the premise and I can't imagine how you see it otherwise.

Though we still have miles and miles to go in the struggle against racism in the US, we have made progress.   That individual at this time must be well over 100 years old and grew up in a culture in which that terminology was common even if unacceptable.  

It's perfect evidence that your companion's opinions were simply reflecting the culture of his times- well over 100 years ago.

[Rain]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I thought this was a great post that I found on Ben Spackman's website and I thought I would quote it here in its entirety - hope that breaks no rules.   It expresses opinions which are very close to mine as well, not surprisingly 

The title is in a large typeface in the original, but on this board it would take up too much space, but the largest type size postable here is 12 points, so it looks tiny here.  

This idea is one which needs to be repeated over and over again- that EVERY text- scriptures and statements by prophets and General Authorities included, are inevitably products of the culture, language, and times of the author and need to be interpreted as such.

I heartily recommend pretty much all of Ben's opinions and find his website to be an important voice in LDS studies.   https://benspackman.com/2020/10/23/mark-e-petersen-expertise-interpretation-and-mcconkies-mormon-doctrine/

 

 

 

So I got out of it that he was saying that not all of these definitive statements are actually doctrine and we have to be ok that sometimes they were wrong. And we need to be ok with not actually having some answers. Is this similar to what you were thinking with your summary?

By the way, this idea "good inspiration is based on good information" may not be from President Nelson.  Similar things were said by women church leaders years earlier than he said it in conference.  I haven't found the original source yet.

Edited November 7, 2020 by Rain

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

So I got out of it that he was saying that not all over these definitive statements are actually doctrine and we have to be ok that sometimes they were wrong. And we need to be ok with not actually have some answers. Is this similar to what you were thinking with your summary?

The simplest answer as I see it, is "yes"!   

I think it is more about the interpretation of what is considered "doctrine" in the first place and that language itself is ambiguous, and in my opinion, this all points to the importance of philosophy of language in handling these issues.

I have been fascinated by the following official statement about how to define our doctrine and how vague and ambiguous the statement itself is.   

It was written to clarify the issue, and yet the statement itself is as ambiguous as any doctrine I have seen!

One might wonder why the statement was even made- and the statement has not been changed or clarified since 2007, so my conclusion is that it is the best that the church - or anyone can do.   https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

It shows the importance of an inspired interpretation which minimizes ambiguity and an inspired leadership which does the best it can to communicate the nuanced feelings of the heart as directed by the Lord.

Quote

 

4 May 2007 - Salt Lake City 

Commentary

Approaching Mormon Doctrine

Much misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine. The news media is increasingly asking what distinguishes the Church from other faiths, and reporters like to contrast one set of beliefs with another.

The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined. 

The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context, and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic. Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being.  In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008) has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges.  According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

Latter-day Saints place heavy emphasis on the application of their faith in daily life. For example, the active participation of Latter-day Saints in their community and worldwide humanitarian programs reflects concern for other people. As Jesus Christ declared, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.

Those writing or commenting on Latter-day Saint doctrine also need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than those same words have in other religions. For example, Latter-day Saints generally view being born again as a process of conversion, whereas many other Christian denominations often view it as a conversion that happens in one defining moment. Sometimes what some may consider an argument or dispute over doctrine is really a misunderstanding of simple differences in terminology. 

Journalists, academics and laymen alike are encouraged to pursue their inquiries into the Church by recognizing the broad and complex context within which its doctrines have been declared, in a spirit of reason and good will.

 

So no single statement is "doctrine".  Is that a surprise?  For some it might be.  Let's just look at a couple of the ambiguities in the statement.  Through inspiration, the 15 "counsel together" (not as a single statement by a prophet)  to "establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed" in church publications.

And yet obviously,without the Spirit we cannot tell which statements ARE "consistently proclaimed" because language itself, being what it is, is not always consistent in meaning.

And it is said that the doctrine "resides" in the Standard Works.   I think that is the best phraseology one can use, but how can one determine which ideas "reside" and which not "reside" in the Standard Works?   And of course there are statements about a doctrine sometimes in different standard works, which may seem to be conflicting.   Without inspired clarification - which might be difficult to find for a given member who may not know how to research such matters- such ambiguity may cause problems

All of these issues and more just go to show how important it is that we connect with the Holy Ghost on a personal basis in these areas which are ambiguous. By its very nature language is symbolic and therefore ambiguous.   Everything known to humanity, in English at least,  - except that which we know in our hearts- has to be able to expressed in various combinations of only 26 squiggles on a page, these squiggles make up what we call the "alphabet"

And so the rest of the church statement- and brother Spackman's blog - correctly in my opinion, put forth very clearly on the importance of interpretation of these utterances

And many of the most important philosophers of the 20th and 21st centuries fully perceive the importance of interpretation ("hermeneutics") and what it can and cannot do.

As a church, those like Ben who understand the importance of a consistent sense of hermeneutics  cannot be ignored when speaking about fine philosophical nuances of language for credibility in the world of academia AND the world of the spirit.

Uh, I guess that was a little more than just "YES", wasn't it? 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermeneutics/

 

Edited November 7, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Rain]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The simplest answer as I see it, is "yes"!   

I think it is more about the interpretation of what is considered "doctrine" in the first place and that language itself is ambiguous, and in my opinion, this all points to the importance of philosophy of language in handling these issues.

I have been fascinated by the following official statement about how to define our doctrine and how vague and ambiguous the statement itself is.   

It was written to clarify the issue, and yet the statement itself is as ambiguous as any doctrine I have seen!

One might wonder why the statement was even made- and the statement has not been changed or clarified since 2007, so my conclusion is that it is the best that the church - or anyone can do.   https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

It shows the importance of an inspired interpretation which minimizes ambiguity and an inspired leadership which does the best it can to communicate the nuanced feelings of the heart as directed by the Lord.

So no single statement is "doctrine".  Is that a surprise?  For some it might be.  Let's just look at a couple of the ambiguities in the statement.  Through inspiration, the 15 "counsel together" (not as a single statement by a prophet)  to "establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed" in church publications.

And yet obviously,without the Spirit we cannot tell which statements ARE "consistently proclaimed" because language itself, being what it is, is not always consistent in meaning.

And it is said that the doctrine "resides" in the Standard Works.   I think that is the best phraseology one can use, but how can one determine which ideas "reside" and which not "reside" in the Standard Works?   And of course there are statements about a doctrine sometimes in different standard works, which may seem to be conflicting.   Without inspired clarification - which might be difficult to find for a given member who may not know how to research such matters- such ambiguity may cause problems

All of these issues and more just go to show how important it is that we connect with the Holy Ghost on a personal basis in these areas which are ambiguous. By its very nature language is symbolic and therefore ambiguous.   Everything known to humanity, in English at least,  - except that which we know in our hearts- has to be able to expressed in various combinations of only 26 squiggles on a page, these squiggles make up what we call the "alphabet"

And so the rest of the church statement- and brother Spackman's blog - correctly in my opinion, put forth very clearly on the importance of interpretation of these utterances

And many of the most important philosophers of the 20th and 21st centuries fully perceive the importance of interpretation ("hermeneutics") and what it can and cannot do.

As a church, those like Ben who understand the importance of a consistent sense of hermeneutics  cannot be ignored when speaking about fine philosophical nuances of language for credibility in the world of academia AND the world of the spirit.

Uh, I guess that was a little more than just "YES", wasn't it? 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermeneutics/

 

Thanks 

[bluebell]

I wonder if Elder Peterson felt that it was within the expertise of the Prophet to define doctrine or make definitive statements but not a member of the 70, and that's why he was ok with the Origins of Man book but not Mormon Doctrine?

[PacMan]

15 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't believe this premise to be correct.   When I was 18 I had a 75-year-old hometeaching companion, and he would refer to blacks with the "N" word when visiting with families with small children.  Wrong then.  Wrong now. 

No, Bob. Look up the word in Wikipedia. For several hundred years it was non offensive and even endearing. Words absolutely change. Even so, you’re cherry-picking a single example to dispute a statement that is largely correct.

Statements by anyone, including prophets, are derivative of language, which are in turn derivative of their particularly time and culture. No reason to be contrarian. 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

I wonder if Elder Peterson felt that it was within the expertise of the Prophet to define doctrine or make definitive statements but not a member of the 70, and that's why he was ok with the Origins of Man book but not Mormon Doctrine?

I think there are somewhat different "schools of thought" amid General Authorities and the 15, because of course they are all human beings who are subject to having different political views, different understandings of science and how it affects doctrine, questions of historicity, etc.   They are from different areas, and now more and more, different countries and cultures- and yet all are unified in their love of the Gospel and Christ.

There are, I am sure, many reasons for differing opinions in the leadership.   In fact Joseph spoke of "proving contraries" in a dialectic approach to finding truth, and was well aware of the benefits of discussion from different perspectives. "Opposition in all things!"

   I have even heard there are Democrats within the leadership, but don't tell anyone. 

🤓.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

I think there are somewhat different "schools of thought" amid General Authorities and the 15, because of course they are all human beings who are subject to having different political views, different understandings of science and how it affects doctrine, questions of historicity, etc.   They are from different areas, and now more and more, different countries and cultures- and yet all are unified in their love of the Gospel and Christ.

There are, I am sure, many reasons for differing opinions in the leadership.   In fact Joseph spoke of "proving contraries" in a dialectic approach to finding truth, and was well aware of the benefits of discussion from different perspectives. "Opposition in all things!"

   I have even heard there are Democrats within the leadership, but don't tell anyone. 

🤓.

Different opinions, sure.  But I'm wondering about the seemingly contradictory forward that Elder Peterson wrote for the Origins of Man that Spackman brought up.  I'm looking for reasons that maybe Elder Peterson did not see his support of Pres. Smith speaking about the origins of man as being contradictory to his words about Mormon Doctrine.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Different opinions, sure.  But I'm wondering about the seemingly contradictory forward that Elder Peterson wrote for the Origins of Man that Spackman brought up.  I'm looking for reasons that maybe Elder Peterson did not see his support of Pres. Smith speaking about the origins of man as being contradictory to his words about Mormon Doctrine.

One of the things I like about Ben's posts is that each one links to many others which amplify his position.

One of the things I sometimes find 'unpleasurable' about his posts is that each one links to many others which amplify his position. 

Each post, if you follow up on every link, suddenly becomes a half-day project of reading link after link substantiating every point he makes, with a nearly encyclopedic reach into many related topics and areas of expertise.  Each post can be made into a several hour seminar, if one is inclined to do so, and I tend to be inclined to do so, which I find both pleasurable and tedious at the same time!!  Sometimes it's almost like "work" 

So I think these Brethren were just doing what they were supposed to do as Latter-Day-Saints- seeking  to fill the measure of their creation!   

I think that the key to the entire exercise is that this is a complex world in which we live, which requires us to be very tolerant toward ambiguity as we seek the "truth" which gives our lives meaning, and I think that this is a life-long process for ALL of us, including prophets, seers and revelators. 

The goal of life is progression and that is one of the central tenets of our church, and personal progression requires personal change as guided by the Holy Ghost- and what we are seeing here and what is represented here in Ben's post is just exactly that.

Here is a link which describes the importance of tolerance for ambiguity

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/tolerance-of-ambiguity

Edited November 7, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Damien the Leper]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And it is said that the doctrine "resides" in the Standard Works.   I think that is the best phraseology one can use, but how can one determine which ideas "reside" and which not "reside" in the Standard Works?   And of course there are statements about a doctrine sometimes in different standard works, which may seem to be conflicting.   Without inspired clarification - which might be difficult to find for a given member who may not know how to research such matters- such ambiguity may cause problems.

This is why, within the Catholic faith, we rely on Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium and Revelation. Outside the Churches of the Ecumenical Councils, I struggle to see the same characteristics in the more contemporary churches.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

One of the things I like about Ben's posts is that each one links to many others which amplify his position.

One of the things I sometimes find 'unpleasurable' about his posts is that each one links to many others which amplify his position. 

Each post, if you follow up on every link, suddenly becomes a half-day project of reading link after link substantiating every point he makes, with a nearly encyclopedic reach into many related topics and areas of expertise.  Each post can be made into a several hour seminar, if one is inclined to do so, and I tend to be inclined to do so, which I find both pleasurable and tedious at the same time!!  Sometimes it's almost like "work" 

Unrelated to your topic, but along with helping others find more info this linking helps with SEO which is really good for helping other people find his blog and set him up as a sort of expert on the topic according to google. 

So while I totally get the drain on time it makes me happy that he is doing something that will really help his blog.  🙂

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So I think these Brethren were just doing what they were supposed to do as Latter-Day-Saints- seeking  to fill the measure of their creation!   

I think that the key to the entire exercise is that this is a complex world in which we live, which requires us to be very tolerant toward ambiguity as we seek the "truth" which gives our lives meaning, and I think that this is a life-long process for ALL of us, including prophets, seers and revelators. 

The goal of life is progression and that is one of the central tenets of our church, and personal progression requires personal change as guided by the Holy Ghost- and what we are seeing here and what is represented here in Ben's post is just exactly that.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Damien the Leper said:

This is why, within the Catholic faith, we rely on Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium and Revelation. Outside the Churches of the Ecumenical Councils, I struggle to see the same characteristics in the more contemporary churches.

"This is why..."

What is "this"?

[Jared Livesey]

If the early Mormons were correct - and for modern Mormonism to be true the truth of early Mormonism is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition - then how should we view departures from the views of the early Mormons?

The early Mormons were of this view:

Quote

This whole spiritualizing and interpreting business, originated in unbelief: it was because men did not believe what the bible said, that caused them to spiritualize and interpret its meaning away; some for gain and some for honor. ... So one pretended reformation followed after another; but all their reformations left the world, in relation to understanding the bible, in the same situation, all had need of spiritualizing. One sect had a part of the bible which they took literally, and another part which they spiritualized: another part spiritualize the part which that sect understood literally, and understand literally what they spiritualized: and so the world is moving on in darkness and ignorance, about the things for which they are willing to fight, (or many of them at least,) and if any man has courage sufficient to expose their wickedness, he must expect to bear their heaviest censures, and have all the evils heaped on his head that malice can invent.

Evening and Morning Star, Vol. 2, Number 14, p. 145

There is more in this vein.

And, as I point out elsewhere, Joseph Smith both taught and practiced literalism.

What can be concluded from the rejection of early Mormonism's naive literalism by adherents of modern Mormonism?

Edited November 9, 2020 by Jared Livesey

[Jared Livesey]

Quote

 

After all the maneuvering and management to conceal their nakedness, of which modorn [modern] religionists are capable, it will come to this at last, that all their darkness and difficulties arise from their unbelief: they are unwilling that the God of heaven should have such an order of things as is set forth in the bible. For should such an order of things ever exist on the earth as the prophets describe, it would expose their works to the contempt of the weakest mind. The religion of the gospel was never more destructive to the craft of Demetrius, than is the religion taught by the ancient prophets opposed to the schemes of modern times, and modern would be saints, whether their religion be of the reformed or nonreformed. The direct proof which we have of the great difference which exists between the things taught in the bible respecting the last times, and the religion believed in by this sectarian generation is, that the religion of this generation is so directly at war with the religion of the bible, that they cannot, with all their intelligence, understand the things taught by the sacred writers: their religion is so directly opposed to the bible, that it does not admit of the existence of such an order of things as the prophets said God would introduce in the last days; and this drives them to the necessity of interpreting, expounding, and spiritualizing, in order to make themselves and others believe, that they are great sticklers for the bible; powerful defenders of the religion it advocates. But instead of their either expounding, or interpreting, the mysteries of the bible, as they pretend, they go to creating mysteries, and making things which in themselves are plain and easy of understanding, dark and incomprehensible. We should really be glad to see some of those spiritualizers, and interpreters, favor the world with a bible manufactured according to their plan, substituting their interpretations and spiritual meanings, for the words which are in the bible, and then compare the one with the other; and we are confident, that no person would suppose that the two books were written on the same subjects: it might be a necessary appendage to Webster's and ****inson's polite bibles.

If those spiritualizers, and interpreters, were to change their course, and instead of spiritualizing, and interpreting, go to believing and understanding the bible as they would any other book, they would soon find that they had inherited lies, and vanity, and things in which there was no profit, [see Jeremiah, 16 chapter and 19 verse,] and their preaching had been vain, as also their faith, and that they were yet in their sins, being far from God, and without hope in the world, save that which they had entertained through the traditions of their fathers, by which they had made void the faith of the gospel and set at nought the counsel of the Most High; having received and taught for doctrines the commandments of men. For it is only the weak and vain schemes of men in spiritualizing and interpreting, which have rendered the bible obscure and unintelligible. All the important items of prophecy relating to the great things of the last days, are as plain as language can make them, if the world was willing to believe that the bible was true; for, to spiritualize the obvious meaning of the prophets away, is to make their language false, and to make them tell lies in the name of the Lord. For a person may believe an interpretation, or a spiritual meaning as the sects call it, and not believe the bible. Indeed it is as impossible for a man to believe both, as it is for him to serve two masters, or to have the friendship of the world, and the favor of God; yea, the camel could go through the needle's eye as easily, or a rich man get into the kingdom of heaven; or a man could as easily serve God and Mammon, as to believe an interpretation, or a spiritual meaning, and the bible also, for the plainest of all reasons, which is this, that a man never spiritualizes, nor interprets, only when he does not believe what is written.

Let men cease thus to pervert the truth, and to handle the word of God deceitfully, (for if this is not handling the word of God deceitfully, it never was handled deceitfully since the world began,) and let them betake themselves to the understanding of it, and it would make a speedy change in their views; the apparent darkness of prophecy would soon disappear; "misgivings" about the proper rules of interpretation would soon cease to exist, and the would be reformers of mankind, would have something of consequence to unfold to the minds of their followers, instead of keeping them years gaping and stretching after something, and receiving nothing except a strife about words, which subvert mens' souls, and serve no better purpose.

Evening and Morning Star, Vol. 2, Number 20, p. 153

 

"A man never spiritualizes, nor interprets, only when he does not believe what is written."

This is consistent with Joseph's Rule of Interpretation.  In light of this thread, however, it suggests a question: would an early Mormon of Joseph's persuasion, such as one holding the view in the quoted material above, believe modern Mormonism to be his own faith?

[stemelbow]

When the Church takes this type of thinking to its logical conclusion, then is the day we have less a Church and more a body of experts telling us what we don't know based on scientific findings.  It'll be a sweet day, for sure, but we're far from there.  

Its nice to acknowledge where the Church has gone off the rails, but the implication seems to be it's not off the rails now.  If we take this type of thinking further than mere commentary attempting to inspire people to think the Church is good, we'll get somewhere.  of course at that day, there'll be no God, scripture, or dogma.  I've enjoyed Ben's take on this over the years, but they seem intent to ignore the obvious place this takes us.  

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, Jared Livesey said:

If the early Mormons were correct - and for modern Mormonism to be true the truth of early Mormonism is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition - then how should we view departures from the views of the early Mormons?

So should we go back to their methods of medicine too?

Why do we have prophets and eternal progression if progression is delusion?

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

When the Church takes this type of thinking to its logical conclusion, then is the day we have less a Church and more a body of experts telling us what we don't know based on scientific findings.  It'll be a sweet day, for sure, but we're far from there.  

Its nice to acknowledge where the Church has gone off the rails, but the implication seems to be it's not off the rails now.  If we take this type of thinking further than mere commentary attempting to inspire people to think the Church is good, we'll get somewhere.  of course at that day, there'll be no God, scripture, or dogma.  I've enjoyed Ben's take on this over the years, but they seem intent to ignore the obvious place this takes us.  

And how do you know you are "right"?  

How do you scientifically determine the purpose of life?

Or better yet how do you scientifically that life has no purpose?

After all -  by your own view then, scientism itself is all based only on the culture of our day and has no more "reality" than religion, right?

We are in the middle of the religious "dark age" except this time around the religion is science.

Both science and religion have their purposes- but science cannot even define the concept of "purpose".  It tells us nothing about what is important in life, and in fact insists on not even asking the question.  Yet every scientist wants to save the world - from disease, global warming, pollution, saving the whales- curing cancer -whatever their specialty is without a standard to determine what the MOST important human priority SHOULD be.

There are no beliefs in science to prove what the most important "SHOULD" is

They all want "equality" with no logic but a religious one to believe we SHOULD be equal?

Where in history have all people been equal?   

One must believe it in your heart, and that belief is "religion" secular or not. All "secular" means is separation between church and state, and secular religions are growing as people finally start to understand those distinctions.

Quote

A secular religion is a communal belief system that often rejects or neglects the metaphysical aspects of the supernatural, commonly associated with traditional religion, instead placing typical religious qualities in earthly entities.  Among systems that have been characterized as secular religions are capitalism,^[1] communism,^[2] Juche,^[3] anarchism^{[citation needed]}, fascism^{[citation needed]}, nationalism^{[citation needed]}, democracy^{[citation needed]}, liberalism^{[citation needed]}, progressivism, transhumanism, Auguste Comte's Religion of Humanity, and the Cults of Reason and Supreme Being that developed after the French Revolution.

Logically we LDS really ARE literally "secular humanists" because we reject the supernatural- even spirit is matter, and God Himself is human.  Miracles are not "supernatural"- we see them as following the laws of nature that we do not yet understand-, like perhaps a television in the middle ages would be seen as a "miracle"

Our goal is the perfection of humanity.   How are we "secular"?  We separate religion from the state - and the history of the gospel details how the state historically has opposed us.   We don't want the government messing with the exercise of religion and we hear a lot lately about how freedom of religion is being threatened today.

ANY belief system - even things like capitalism vs communism are ultimately a "religion" without premises that can be proven scientifically.

Edited November 10, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

When the Church takes this type of thinking to its logical conclusion, then is the day we have less a Church and more a body of experts telling us what we don't know based on scientific findings.  It'll be a sweet day, for sure, but we're far from there.  

Its nice to acknowledge where the Church has gone off the rails, but the implication seems to be it's not off the rails now.  If we take this type of thinking further than mere commentary attempting to inspire people to think the Church is good, we'll get somewhere.  of course at that day, there'll be no God, scripture, or dogma.  I've enjoyed Ben's take on this over the years, but they seem intent to ignore the obvious place this takes us.  

The obvious place this takes us is to the place where we realize that EVERY text (AND all spoken words)- scriptures and statements by prophets and General Authorities included, are inevitably products of the culture, language, and times of the author and need to be interpreted as such.

I think its debatable that our words need to be interpreted as such, but they are in fact products of the culture, language, and times of the authors/orators who use words to convey what they experience.

[stemelbow]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And how do you know you are "right"?  

How do you scientifically determine the purpose of life?

Or better yet how do you scientifically that life has no purpose?

I don't knw if I"m right about any of this.  That would be the point.  Once religion or perhaps Mormonism steps up and starts claiming what is real, we'd be somewhere.  Claiming Jesus is Christ isn't real...it's assumption, for instance.  You would think the teachers of religion should acknowledge that.  "we don't really know that Jesus taught anything found in the Bible or BoM or any of it.  We don't know if he lives, or if his prayers and death saved us....We simply don't know any of this."  Once religion gets there, we might get somewhere.  

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't knw if I"m right about any of this.  That would be the point.  Once religion or perhaps Mormonism steps up and starts claiming what is real, we'd be somewhere.  Claiming Jesus is Christ isn't real...it's assumption, for instance.  You would think the teachers of religion should acknowledge that.  "we don't really know that Jesus taught anything found in the Bible or BoM or any of it.  We don't know if he lives, or if his prayers and death saved us....We simply don't know any of this."  Once religion gets there, we might get somewhere.  

Depends on who you are including in this "we" you speak of.  Many of us do know that Jesus is real and that the theological understanding of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is real.  You sound like you don't, but many of us actually do

Really truly.  However much you want to deny this reality.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Depends on who you are including in this "we" you speak of.  Many of us do know that Jesus is real and that the theological understanding of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is real.  You sound like you don't, but many of us actually do

Really truly.  However much you want to deny this reality.

Granted.  That is my point.  many believers claim to know that which experts don't claim to know, or don't claim to be knowable.  That's why the reasoning isn't followed through beyond a mere glance.  It'd make religion disappear.  

[Ahab]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Granted.  That is my point.  many believers claim to know that which experts don't claim to know, or don't claim to be knowable.  That's why the reasoning isn't followed through beyond a mere glance.  It'd make religion disappear.  

Experts on God?  Who do you think those experts are?  There are experts on God who do know God and what God knows.  I don't think you know who the experts on God really are.