"None Can Preach the Gospel Like the Mormons Do"

[_malkie]

Hi Consig.

I'm sorry if this comes over as snarky - I'm giving you my off-the-top-of-my-head reaction, so I hope you don't find the allusion offensive.

Could this be a case in which a religious leader might say something like: "I don't know if we teach that, I don't know if we emphasise it ..."?

[_Jersey Girl]

Hoops

Shall we move on to why this passage doesn't mean what LDS claim it means?

(smiley)

Yes, in fact, I think you should create a new thread about it. In fact, I demand it!

:-D

[_Aristotle Smith]

In talking about Jesus preaching to the dead, I mentioned 1 Peter 3:18-20 and 4:6. She went and grabbed a Bible (she has many lying about) and opened it to the passages and read them.

She was floored. She could not recall ever seeing these passages before, and was shocked that they should be right there in her KJV New Testament.

It all depends on the church one is raised in. An Orthdox Christian would tell you exactly what the passages in 1 Peter mean and it would have nothing to do with what Mormons think. In fact it's commonly on the painted walls of Orthodox churches. You will see a scene of Christ emerging from hell with the souls he has rescued following him.

It's also part of the ecumencial apostle's creed. There is a phrase "he descended to hell" which is a reference to the orthodox belief that Jesus went to hell after his death to rescue the souls there, the souls that could now come out because of his death on the cross.

None of this would be emphasized in a Bible based non-denominational protestant American church. That's probably why she never saw it.

She had a similar experience when we moved on to 1 Corinthians 15:29.

I think most people skip over 1 Cor 15:29 because it's a tangential aside to the entire point of the 15th chapter. It's easy to skip over. But, I do have to say that the LDS interpretation of this one passage is the most compelling I have seen.

I was wondering if anybody has thoughts as to why this would happen, and whether they have had similar experiences.

I would agree with Blixa 100%. When you try and read the Bible in context and let the text speak for itself (which you can never achieve with 100% success), the book comes alive and speaks with a much different voice than one hears when one is taught to see a specific set of doctrines through massive proof texting and decontextualized reading.

If you really want to get hit upside the head, read it in the original language. I still remember the first time I made it through Galatians in Greek. The KJV translation of Paul is AWFUL. It's hard to understand and boring. Paul is a very jarring writer, you can almost hear him screaming at the top of his lungs in Galatians in Greek. Galatians 1:6 has got to be one of the greatest sucker punches in all of scripture. I re-read the book a couple of times to make sure I wasn't crazy, because what Paul was saying was unlike anything I had ever hear in church.

[_consiglieri]

I would *love* to find a Bible that doesn't have verse breaks!

I have a Bible (NIV?) that just has paragraphs across the entirety of the page and no verse breaks.

I think Grant Hardy did this recently with the Book of Mormon, as well (which I have but am waiting till next year to read).

There are tiny superscript numbers where the verses start so you can reference it, but they are so small they don't interfere with the flow of the language.

When Grant Hardy edited the Book of Mormon this way, he reports he was astonished at the things he saw in the Book of Mormon that were obscured by the artificial versification.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Hoops]

Personally, I find it more effective to try to ignore the numbering of the verses.

Peronally, I find it more effective to try to ignore the actual verses.

[_Blixa]

Although we talk a lot about scripture marking in the LDS Church (are other churches different in this regard?), and although it certainly serves a purpose, I am starting to feel that by marking scriptures we are simulteously defining what scriptures are important and what they mean, thereby making it more difficult to subsequently alter that understanding or see other passages of import.

Obviously proof-texting is not limited to the Mormon church; it would be quite interesting, though, to hear how others here have read scriptures outside of an LDS setting. I'm sure Bible Study is actual study in some places!

Your second point, about the consequences of the practice of underlining probably doesn't go far enough. Marking up texts is necessary to learning; to really read you have to work over a book! But this means more than just the underlining of "important" passages in yellow marker that my students have learned: one of the terrible anti-learning habits engendered in the destroyed classrooms of America. You need to write marginalia, do your own cross-indexing, develop habits that encourage rereading and critical reflection. And this may be harder in a religious setting where the object of study is given a kind of hands-off "sacred" status.

I sometimes enjoy reading books that I've read many times from a fresh copy. However, when I can read a book and simultaneously see how I read it at 16, 21 and 36, or in High School and later in grad school, it helps encourage recognition of the changes wrought by the passage of time: changes in meaning, importance, personality, world view and so on. Often times I see a later self crossing out and censoring the "juvenile" responses of younger self---that's kind of shocking, but really good for intellectual hubris! Who do I think I am?

[_consiglieri]

Shall we move on to why this passage doesn't mean what LDS claim it means?

(smiley)

So funny you should say that!

In my neighbor's Bible, there was a HUGE footnote under 1 Cor. 15:29. The first sentence said, "This doesn't mean people were being baptized by proxy for the dead," and went on from there in a convoluted manner to give some alternate interpretation that what it really meant is that just being baptized doesn't guarantee one's salvation. (It seemed a wee stretch.)

She read the whole thing out loud.

I told her it was funny the first line was to contradict what the plain meaning of the passage seemes to indicate.

She flipped to the front to see that the editor was one promoting a certain religious view.

I also told her many modern New Testament scholars who are not coming at this text from a particular religious perspective agree it is referring to a practice among early Christians of baptizing people on behalf of the dead.

I gave Krister Stendahl of the Harvard Divinity School as an example.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

Could this be a case in which a religious leader might say something like: "I don't know if we teach that, I don't know if we emphasise it ..."?

I don't find it snarky at all.

I am known to quote that statement to Mormons who talk about God once being a man. ;^)

Some of them actually get it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Hoops]

Such is the danger of plucking a verse from it's specific and broad context.

[_consiglieri]

Who do I think I am?

I think you are someone gaining further light and knowledge. ;^)


All the Best!

--Consiglieri