DiscussMormonism.com

First, a bit about my day:

“Hermeneutics is the task of bringing about the presence of God” My Reb spoke boldly, while gesturing with as much gusto. He continued, “How do you apply Divine Law to the present, when the Law is outside it’s own context of Revelation?” Of course I can’t answer the question, and Reb keeps silent, running his hand over his beard and looking intently at me. He erupted again, shifting in his chair and using his hands to emphasize his words, “ People ask questions, questions keep hermeneutics going BUT!” he emphasized that last word by raising his voice and pointing his finger to the ceiling, “ The Bible, Torah, the Divine Law is closed. There are no more prophets to say, ‘Thus sayeth the Lord’ and no more Priesthood to offer the sacrifice. How do you open the canon back up? How do you bring this Divine Law, the experience and relationship of Revelation, into the present and maintain authority?!?” This last question was followed by his busy hands dropping into his lap and a sheepish grin on his face. Not only was I stumped, but was reeling from the insights gained, and Reb knew it.

SAUCE

This talk also had me thinking about Consiglieri’s situation. I think I might have a possible solution for Consiglieri, so that he can teach the class faithfully, without a crisis of conscience.

Think what you want of the Book of Mormon, the fact is, it’s a text. This text has a context, and within that context we find texture. I think Consiglieri has enough background information, and nimble enough mind, he could spin quite a lesson out any text in the standard works.

More to follow Consiglieri…but I wanted Old Testament get my thoughts out there.

Thanks, MS! I do appreciate the thoughts.

It is sometimes easy for me to forget there are those outside the LDS Church pining for new revelation, while at the same time the LDS Church that was founded to break into history with new revelation and communication from God seems busy divesting itself of such trappings except in theory only.

Last night I sat down with my wife and read to her the Church News article about using "proper sources," and Hugh B. Brown's commencement address from the late 1960's.

She agreed the contrast is striking.

There are a number of "money quotes" in Hugh B. Brown's address, and I may focus my lesson there, should I actually get to give it.

I agree with you about the texture of the Book of Mormon, and would certainly extend that to all the standard works, including the Book of Abraham.

This is why when I was Gospel Doctrine class, I focused my lessons on the scriptures themselves, rather than the proof-texts advanced by the manuals in order to teach and promote correlated Mormonism.

It has occurred to me that we spend 95% of the time talking about 5% of the scriptures.

I just want to give the other 95% a chance to be heard.

My lesson on the Book of Job was a classic example, where the lesson wanted only to talk about the humdrum prologue and epilogue of the story, where Job is faithful and quietly and submissively obedient (and of course throw in the standard two proof texts).

I mentioned that, and then went into the meat of the middle, showing the poetic portral of Job as challenging God to bring him to court to prove what Job has done to merit the bad treatment he was receiving.

And then God coming from the whirlwind (a symbol of the destructive and apparently capricious power of God), not to answer Job's question, but to put him in his place.

It is interesting that a book devoted to the subject of searching out the reason why bad things happen to good people is ultimately unable to present a reason. All it really does is set forth the most common answers to the problem through the mouths of others, and declare these are NOT the reasons.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

MrStakhanovite wrote:Think what you want of the Book of Mormon, the fact is, it’s a text. This text has a context, and within that context we find texture. I think Consiglieri has enough background information, and nimble enough mind, he could spin quite a lesson out any text in the standard works.

More to follow Consiglieri…but I wanted Old Testament get my thoughts out there.

Maybe I'm not following, but I still think consiglieri has a real problem here.

First, the Book of Mormon's purported context, ancient America, simply doesn't exist. So, to put the Book of Mormon into a context, it has to be a context other than the purported context. Does one fit?

Yes, the context of 19th century American Protestant Christianity. The problem is that if you go about teaching that this is the proper context for the Book of Mormon you are in essence saying that the Book of Mormon is unhistorical, which will get you in trouble. The only thing that will get you in trouble faster in the LDS church is to say that the LDS General Authorities are wrong.

Finally, what they really mean when they say stick to the official manuals is: Pretend that the context for the scriptures are what has been taught as doctrine since 1979 and has been correlated as such. This essentially means to treat all LDS scriptures as a proof texts for correlated material and general conference talks (which is just a subset of correlated materials, since they are correlated).

consiglieri's choice is still the same, lie or defy the brethren. It's the same choice everyone who ends up knowing too much faces.

consiglieri wrote:It has occurred to me that we spend 95% of the time talking about 5% of the scriptures.

I might add, all too often that 95% is spent misrepresenting the 5%.

When I taught seminary (Old Testament) I spent a lot of time looking at scripture mastery verses. Those verses are the official Mormon proof-texts for the Old Testament, and thus are prime real estate in that 5%. They give the students these cards with the verses on one side and on the flip side the historical setting, a missionary application, a personal application, and I think something else. By the time I got done analyzing each of those cards I had concluded that there was something wrong with every single card. Usually it was something fairly big that was wrong, though rarely it was a minor point that one could debate.

Aristotle Smith wrote:Finally, what they really mean when they say stick to the official manuals is: Pretend that the context for the scriptures are what has been taught as doctrine since 1979 and has been correlated as such. This essentially means to treat all LDS scriptures as a proof texts for correlated material and general conference talks (which is just a subset of correlated materials, since they are correlated).

Here I am completely in agreement with you.

But as I have been pondering this over the past few days, and reviewing Daymon Smith's Mormon Stories podcast interview, I am wondering if there is a connection between the correlated Mormon version of an extremely limited circle of Mormon doctrine to be taught in church, and the decision made by the Church about a century back to go with Orson Pratt's idea (as opposed to Brigham Young) that God is not eternally increasing in knowledge, but knows all things.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

consiglieri wrote:Last night I sat down with my wife and read to her

I would have thought it would have been the other way around. After all, she did marry below her class-iness.

Hoops wrote:I would have thought it would have been the other way around. After all, she did marry below her class-iness.

I can still manage words with two syllables.

(Except for "syllables," it would appear.)

All the Best!

--Consig . . .

consiglieri wrote:My lesson on the Book of Job was a classic example, where the lesson wanted only to talk about the humdrum prologue and epilogue of the story, where Job is faithful and quietly and submissively obedient (and of course throw in the standard two proof texts).

I mentioned that, and then went into the meat of the middle, showing the poetic portral of Job as challenging God to bring him to court to prove what Job has done to merit the bad treatment he was receiving.

And then God coming from the whirlwind (a symbol of the destructive and apparently capricious power of God), not to answer Job's question, but to put him in his place.

It is interesting that a book devoted to the subject of searching out the reason why bad things happen to good people is ultimately unable to present a reason. All it really does is set forth the most common answers to the problem through the mouths of others, and declare these are NOT the reasons.

I have a very different reading. In the various speeches Job sticks fast to his concept of goodness and justice. He defends it. His "friends" fixate on tossing it aside, making man out to be nothing, and not judging God because his justice is unknowable and the like.

In the end Job is commended and his friends condemned.

If anything the lesson is that the key to advancing in our understanding of why God does what He does is to relentlessly apply our understandings of goodness and justice to God's acts to understand Him. The condemned are the ones who just say it is God's will and don't talk back and leave it at that. They don't understand goodness and worship of God or the devil wouldn't be that different for them.

Job doesn't get the answer to the question but is assured there is an answer when God appears and speaks. I think even if the writer of Job had the answer he wouldn't have shared it. It's not really the point of the book.

Similar lessons are taught in the apocryphal books of Enoch where Enoch calls on God not to use the Flood seeing it as unjust. God doesn't rebuke Enoch but instead commends him for his feeling for his fellow man and then explains that he loves them even more but this has to be done and gives the reasons.

consiglieri wrote:
Here I am completely in agreement with you.

I am wondering if there is a connection between the correlated Mormon version of an extremely limited circle of Mormon doctrine to be taught in church, and the decision made by the Church about a century back to go with Orson Pratt's idea (as opposed to Brigham Young) that God is not eternally increasing in knowledge, but knows all things.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Can you expand a bit on this or steer me to somewhere I can read about it?

Thanks

Fence Sitter wrote:
Can you expand a bit on this or steer me to somewhere I can read about it?

Thanks

I put up a link in the companion thread to this one about being asked to teach a "very strange" lesson.

It is to a four-part interview with Daymon Smith on Mormon Stories. Part 2 deals with the rise of Correlation in the Church, and Daymon speaks a bit about this episode between Orson Pratt and Brigham Young as an instance of the rich Mormon heritage of theological speculation.

And it didn't stop there.

Orson Pratt opposed Brigham Young's Adam-God teachings, even under threat of church (read: Brigham Young) discipline.

There was an article about this (which I believe you can find by googling) called "Conflict in the Quorum."

It is a good read.

One of the ironies being that it is Pratt's heretical positions on these issues that have become today's correlated orthodoxy.

Hope this helps.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri