"Don't Ask, Don't Tell"--The First Law of Mormonism

[_Cicero]

Thanks Aristotle Smith for the concise summary of the issue. I tried to find an apologetic response on FAIR's site but was not able to locate one; do you happen to know the typical response?

I suspect that it would be somewhat like FAIR's short article on the Deutero-Isaiah problem (http://www.fairlds.org/authors/schindler-marc/deutero-isaiah-in-the-book-of-mormon), which essentially asserts that the "higher critics" have it wrong because they misunderstand the nature of prophets and scripture.

Essentially, the answer to your question re why Jesus would say something that hasn't been written yet is that He, being omniscient and all that, knew what would be written and specifically chose His favored version of it and also chose to deliver it to us in a way that would be particularly applicable to the latter days.

I really hate this line of thinking from apologists because it usually implies that a critic is being lazy by daring to adopt a simpler interpretation of the facts at hand (in this case for example, that Joseph simply was plagiarizing the KJV as he saw fit).

[_why me]

I have to somewhat echo your thoughts consig, ignorance is now enshrined as a virtue.

For whatever reason I went to Sunday School with my wife yesterday. I try and bolt after sacrament meetings, but she seemed for me to want to stay.

Anyway, they were discussing "The Sermon on the Mount" in 3 Nephi. There was some Area Authority Seventy in the audience, and he offered his opinion at several points. I was flabbergasted at his comments. Shallow, eisegetical, and at one point I think demonstrably wrong. But that's just what Sunday School is nowadays, rehashing the current talking points. No one really cares what the text actually says, just continue on with the general ignorant confidence that Mormons are right because they are the one true church.

I was probably in a foul mood because I think 3 Nephi 12-14 is one of the big smoking guns against the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but had to sit through people thinking it was a great upgrade to the text in Matthew.

It must be a wonderful feeling feeling superior to the peons in your class. To sit and listen to such inferior humans who do not have the knowledge that you have was a real sacrifice for your wife. Of course you could have raised your hand and shared your intellect with them. This would have brought your absolute expertise into the discussion and many would have learned from your reflective insight.

But, you did like many do here on this forum: stay silent and bask in superiority.

[_why me]

Or is it simply (and I think this more likely) that it became crystal clear that the highest virtue is no longer obedience faith or charity or even obedience, but willful ignorance.

The first law of Mormonism is now, "Don't ask, don't tell."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

You are absolutely right. The people in that sunday school class were certainly ignorant. It must have been absolute torture for you to sit there and listen to such inferior ignorant people. It is ashame that you could not have raised your hand and give your superior intellect an opportunity to teach the ignorant members some well known truth. But you chose to remain silent with a smirk on your face as you listened to the ignorant bliss that was around you.

[_Bob Loblaw]

There are two basic problems with the Sermon on the Mount text in 3 Nephi.

The first problem is text-critical, which means that the words in 3 Nephi do not match the text of the oldest and best Greek Manuscripts. When the KJV was translated, scholars were just beginning to gather old Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. So the base Greek Text the KJV translators used was an amalgam of a few late Greek Texts. In the intervening 400 years scholars have discovered literally thousands of texts, many of which are much older than those used by the KJV. The text of the Sermon on the Mount has had some changes as the better manuscripts have come to light. A great test of prophetic ability would be if the Book of Mormon matched the better, older texts, rather than the texts used for the KJV. They do not, but rather track the KJV text. The most obvious problem is that the Lord's prayer in Matthew 6 does not have the final words, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen." Scholars are unanimous that this was a later addition, but 3 Nephi has this in its text. By the way, if you want an in depth article explaining these issues see New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, chapter 5.

The second problem is source critical, which is the study of the sources used by the gospel writers to craft their respective gospels. There is very good evidence that both Matthew and Luke shared a similar source for the contents of the Sermon on the Mount. However, they did not copy the source blindly, though they share the same themes. This is what accounts for the fact that Matthew's Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) is very similar to Luke's Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:17-49), but not exactly the same. They have a common source, but Matthew and Luke exercised their literary license in what they included and where they put it. The bottom line is that the Sermon on the Mount is a creation of Matthew, while the Sermon on the Plain is a creation of Luke. So the question is: Why is Jesus showing up and quoting verbatim someone else's creation? Even more problematic is that most estimates for the composition date of Matthew put the book as being authored between 70-90 A.D. So now you have to ask: Why Jesus is quoting a text that hadn't been written yet?

Thanks for that, AS. Mark Twain had it right: "The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. "

[_Sethbag]

Isn't the bolded word redundant in the usual religious context? Who doesn't read and interpret the scriptures in a religious service from the point of view of supporting their own doctrine and ideas?

It doesn't bother me as much, usually not at all, when an average church member (of any denomination) does this. I fully expect that people who don't think about stuff too much to simply read it in their own specific context, which is guaranteed eisegesis. However, I hold leadership to a higher standard, they should know to give a better argument or to be quiet. Since someone saw fit to make him an Area Authority Seventy, that means he gets held to the higher standard in my book.

I was talking about this with two LDS missionaries I ran into while out on my bike the other day. People who grow up in a religious household that regards the Bible as the Word of God will typically learn a lot about what their church/religion says the Bible means as they grow up, in Sunday School (or primary if they're LDS). By the time they learn how to read, and then work up the motivation actually to get busy reading the Bible, they already "know" what the Bible means, ie: it means what their church/religion says it means. So they read the Bible and, surprise surprise, discover that it in fact does support and explain their religious views. The religious corollary to confirmation bias ensures that they read and understand the Bible in the way that supports their already-held religious views. So their reading of the Bible is inherently eisegetical*, without some very conscious effort put into looking at it carefully from a neutral or unbiased point of view.

An Area Authority Seventy is just a successful (in the worldly sense) Mormon who has also played the game inside the church successfully, and climbed up the ladder a few rungs. I see no reason they wouldn't be subject to the same behavior and conditioning that the general TBM population labors under. Indeed, if anything, they would probably epitomize it. They didn't get to be lower-tier Mormon rock stars by going out on a limb and being unique, did they?

*not ashamed to admit I had to look this up after reading it in your first post, but it's a perfectly cromulent word for a concept I've required a paragraph to explain to myself and others.

[_Cicero]

It must be a wonderful feeling feeling superior to the peons in your class. To sit and listen to such inferior humans who do not have the knowledge that you have was a real sacrifice for your wife. Of course you could have raised your hand and shared your intellect with them. This would have brought your absolute expertise into the discussion and many would have learned from your reflective insight.

But, you did like many do here on this forum: stay silent and bask in superiority.

You are falsely assuming why me that people in the class would have actually enjoyed engaging with Aristotle Smith on these issues. In my experience (and I have attended pretty much every week of my entire life), that is simply not the case. I am sure that there are a few in every ward that wold enjoy such a discussion, but in my experience most members' reaction to hearing such information looks more like this (and yes, that is why I generally keep my mouth shut during SS and priesthood because I do actually care about other people's feelings more than proving my own "vast supriority" over them):

[_angsty]

Yesterday was a pisser in Gospel Doctrine class.

The teacher announced somewhere in the middle of class that all that should ever be taugh is faith, repentance, baptism and the Holy Ghost; that anything else constitutes "mysteries"; that we should not seek to know "mysteries," and that if we should find out any "mysteries" we should never talk about them to others but keep them to ourselves.

The teacher called on a past bishop who stood up, echoed what she had said, said that "mysteries" such as knowing how God transports things from one to location to another are not important for our salvation, and sat down.

I don't know why this upset me so much. It's not like I haven't heard it before. Is it because this is the exact same class I taught for four years and this was like a slap in the face?

Or is it simply (and I think this more likely) that it became crystal clear that the highest virtue is no longer obedience faith or charity or even obedience, but willful ignorance.

The first law of Mormonism is now, "Don't ask, don't tell."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Oh this totally gets me wound up and I'm not sure I can opine with any clarity because of it.

My mother held/holds some similar ideas-- that we are supposed to hold to the rod, never "looking past the mark" to distractions of lesser importance, and that while unsought, the mysteries of the gospel would unfold according to our obedience. And then of course, all the mysteries were too sacred to be spoken about. I can't count how many times I was told that so-and-so fell away from the gospel because he/she delved into the mysteries of their own accord instead of waiting for them to unfold on God's timetable.

I told my mother a few years ago that if maintaining a particular set of beliefs requires that I stop thinking broadly, that set of beliefs falls under immediate suspicion. It has been my experience in life that the truth of various beliefs generally becomes more apparent with closer scrutiny. The idea that learning requires an individual to assume a passive role, seems unhealthy-- and just plain wrong.

My patriarchal blessing said something about how I shouldn't be afraid to seek truth and that I would never be led astray by that priority. I guess that's why even as a devoted believer, I wasn't afraid to ask questions. I'm glad that was in there because that thought comforted me as I tried to sort things out. Good hell, I'd probably be slogging through the Book of Mormon for the umpteenth time otherwise.

[_Bob Loblaw]

You are falsely assuming why me that people in the class would have actually enjoyed engaging with Aristotle Smith on these issues. In my experience (and I have attended pretty much every week of my entire life), that is simply not the case. I am sure that there are a few in every ward that wold enjoy such a discussion, but in my experience most members' reaction to hearing such information looks more like this (and yes, that is why I generally keep my mouth shut during SS and priesthood because I do actually care about other people's feelings more than proving my own "vast supriority" over them):

Can you do me a favor and not quote why me? I've enjoyed not having to read his condescending and often nasty (and creepy) drivel.

As for your comments, it's not the members' fault that the church has taught them to stick with regurgitated pablum week in and week out. We were trained to get a bit uncomfortable when someone "strayed" from the manual. That isn't conducive to learning or discussion, and it has nothing to do with anyone's stupidity.

[_Aristotle Smith]

An Area Authority Seventy is just a successful (in the worldly sense) Mormon who has also played the game inside the church successfully, and climbed up the ladder a few rungs. I see no reason they wouldn't be subject to the same behavior and conditioning that the general TBM population labors under. Indeed, if anything, they would probably epitomize it. They didn't get to be lower-tier Mormon rock stars by going out on a limb and being unique, did they?

You are correct, they probably do epitomize it. But then that is just further proof for consig's theory that the LDS church is all about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." When people who should know better exemplify the worst behavior you've got some serious problems.

[_Bob Loblaw]

You are correct, they probably do epitomize it. But then that is just further proof for consig's theory that the LDS church is all about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." When people who should know better exemplify the worst behavior you've got some serious problems.

You can see what the church values by the kinds of people it gets to take leadership positions. Lawyers, businessmen--these are the guys who lead the church. And why not? It's a big corporation and someone has to run it. Having dealt with a number of general authorities, I can confidently say that humility, kindness, and depth of spiritual conviction are not high on the list of job requirements.