Can't get Mormonism from just the Quad?

[_Chap]

Agreed. In the LDS context the doctrine merely resides in the scriptures, the FP and Qo12 establish and publish it. You have to read the works published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints if you want to understand Mormonism.

I don't think I really disagree with you here, BC, but help me understand this: How can the FP and Qo12 "establish" doctrine that already exists and "resides" in the Scriptures? Wouldn't the "establishment" of doctrine have occurred at its writing (as Scripture)?

Yes, that is a bit of a puzzle. Notice the careful use of the word 'merely': "the doctrine merely resides in the scriptures". What the heck difference would it make if one simply said "the doctrine resides in the scriptures"? And more than that: what the heck difference would it make if one simply said "the doctrine is in the scriptures"?

The difference, of course, is that saying "merely" and using "resides" is a rhetorical trick to direct attention away from the fact that if the doctrine is already in the scriptures, which have been published, then the doctrine has been established and published. So the secondary writings and publications of the church are in a subordinate role, and an attentive reading of scripture would be sufficient.

But that would make the First Presidency unnecessary in "establishing and publishing doctrine", which would never do.

[_TrashcanMan79]

Yes, that is a bit of a puzzle. Notice the careful use of the word 'merely': "the doctrine merely resides in the scriptures". What the heck difference would it make if one simply said "the doctrine resides in the scriptures"? And more than that: what the heck difference would it make if one simply said "the doctrine is in the scriptures"?

The difference, of course, is that saying "merely" and using "resides" is a rhetorical trick to direct attention away from the fact that if the doctrine is already in the scriptures, which have been published, then the doctrine has been established and published. So the secondary writings and publications of the church are in a subordinate role, and an attentive reading of scripture would be sufficient.

But that would make the First Presidency unnecessary in "establishing and publishing doctrine", which would never do.

You have captured the cause of my confusion perfectly. Hopefully BC will return to the thread and clear this all up for us.

[_zeezrom]

You also can't get civil engineering from the P.E. study manual.

[_Chap]

You also can't get civil engineering from the P.E. study manual.

Meaning this:

http://www.amazon.com/Civil-Engineering ... 1591260434

The book in question seems to be excellent as a guide to passing the exam, which is what it is designed for, although there are many other aspects of civil engineering practice and management that it seems to cover only in sketchy outline.

Are you trying to say that the books in the quad are like an exam outline, and the Ensign is the extra stuff you need to actually make a project get done? If you want to make that a case for that analogy, I have to say it does not sound very convincing. Do you want to try at greater length?

[Guest]

I think to "get Mormonism" one needs to experience it, but at the same time I think each experience would be unique. I lived for decades in both Utah and California and Mormonism is different in each place. I have also lived in both areas as an adult and a child and it was different 40-50 years ago in both places than it is now. I have also been active and inactive and I 'got Mormonism' differently as a result.

The bottom line is, I am not convinced there is a unique "Mormonism" to be understood, only different views of a dynamic religion/culture/age. The Mormonism that is limited to the quad would be like looking at a small section of Sistine Chapel ceiling through a straw.

On edit:

I recently read "Under the Banner of Heaven". My wife and I lived in Provo from about 1978-1988ish. I was aware of the Mark Hoffman affair and the Lafferty murders, but after reading the book I 'get Mormonism' differently for that time than I did before I read the book.

[_zeezrom]

You also can't get civil engineering from the P.E. study manual.

Are you trying to say that the books in the quad are like an exam outline, and the Ensign is the extra stuff you need to actually make a project get done? If you want to make that a case for that analogy, I have to say it does not sound very convincing. Do you want to try at greater length?

No, I'm suggesting that experience is necessary to understand engineering.

[_Philo Sofee]

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with that, Mr. Stak. After all, there are significant chunks of LDS who've never even read those texts all the way through, and they don't seem to have much of a problem "feeling" Mormon, nor does the Church have any problems in terms of recognizing them as members in full standing. Furthermore, very little of what we'd consider "Mormon culture" is in any meaningful way connected to LDS scriptures.

Exactly right. In point of very fact, the modern church today exults that if all the scriptures would simply disappear, they have the living prophet, and therefore know all they need to know.......and considering the prophet today, all that need appears to me to be is the length of sleeves, and SHOPPING!!!!!! Hey if yer gonna blow billions, you may as well encourage the triviality....

[_Nightlion]

My Zion is found in scripture. My Christianity is found in the Old Testament and in the New Testament as well as in the Book of Mormon and Pearl of GP and the gospel is in the D&C. My entire schtick is telling the LDS how far afield the are from their Restoration moorings.

All religion of man follows a god after their own image and likeness. Meaning what THEY like and not so much what God likes.

[_honorentheos]

You also can't get civil engineering from the P.E. study manual.

Are you trying to say that the books in the quad are like an exam outline, and the Ensign is the extra stuff you need to actually make a project get done? If you want to make that a case for that analogy, I have to say it does not sound very convincing. Do you want to try at greater length?

No, I'm suggesting that experience is necessary to understand engineering.

In German, there are three verbs that can translate into "to know" in English: können, kennen, and wissen. (Link explanation)

When reading exchanges such as in this thread, I find myself thinking how English could use these distinctions. A professor I knew in Germany who was a bit of a linguist would often say that "kennen" was the root of the old english word for cunning derived from an extinct verb "to ken".

[#img] http://imlearninggerman.com/files/2012/09/020-kennen.png [/img]

Anyway.

I completely agree with Zeezrom and Fence Sitter. There is a type of understanding that can only come from "within" a cultural community - the knowledge of "I/We". There is also a type of knowledge that is unreachable for the community to attain as it requires being able to analyize from outside - the knowledge of "It/Them".

With scripture, I think the temptation is to think one can comprehend what it means to be an "I/We" by just reading them. That temptation applies to both insiders trying to explain themselves to outsiders as well as outsiders trying to explain insider behaviour.

There is no such bridge. Like electrons in quantum states, one is either within or without the community with all the access as well as limitations associated with the particular state one is in. When one converts, one is in. When the shelf breaks, one is out.

My opinion of course. But I think accepting these limitations would go a long way to fostering meaningful dialog. Of course, that would probably reduce the entertainment value of the "dialog", so...can't have that.

[_ludwigm]

I think to "get Mormonism" one needs to experience it, but at the same time I think each experience would be unique. I lived for decades in both Utah and California and Mormonism is different in each place

Hungary is a small country (I think You know it...) but the atmosphere of the branches can be as different as in Your different states.
Mormonism has too many unwritten rule to be consistent.

Local leaders can preach more stupid thing than first generation apostles of 1850s - 60s ...


by the way my experience comes only from three branches of H, of approx two dozen.
I could refer to data from cumorah.com. Unfortunately, they are far from up to date. Their last material is of 1999 !
Moreover, they (as GAs in SLC) don't listen the world outside. I've warned them that we, Hungarians are not Slavic. No answer, no change.
After three shot, I gave up.