Forums: Community: The Soap Box:
(mor)Man made climbing
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Soap Box

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All


jcasper


Dec 15, 2006, 4:45 PM
Post #101 of 113 (779 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 23, 2005
Posts: 108

Re: [fluxus] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

fluxus wrote:
but even within the faith there is room for disagreement, this image of God as "new critic" (new criticism was popular form of literary analysis in the 1st half of the 20th century it placed emphasis on close readings for the sake of revealing authorial intent.) is a common way of thinking about scriptures in the church but it's not the only one. Other LDS members, thinkers, and scholars use different approaches to understanding scriptures that do not rely on the notion of language as having singular, fixed, or even stable meaning.

Heh, caught me there. And I agree to some extent. What I said about God providing "what the original author meant", was added on just before posting and in hindsight is not what I meant to say. I absolutely agree that writings of the prophets do not have singular, fixed, or stable meaning. I guess I meant that God provides true doctrine today through living prophets. And with that true doctrine we are better equipped to understand and use the scriptures that we have for our benefit.


flamer


Dec 15, 2006, 5:13 PM
Post #102 of 113 (769 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 2955

Re: [fluxus] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

fluxus wrote:
Judging from your climbing log you couldn't keep up with me past the warm-up. :-)


Ok sport'o...thing is you couldn't keep up past the first 100ft.

josh


fluxus


Dec 15, 2006, 6:05 PM
Post #103 of 113 (759 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 947

Re: [camhead] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
Still confuses me how this ever-changing interpretation gels with "TRUTH."

Mormon theology is a bit different from that of other Christian groups. For many Christian groups the scriptures are the ultimate standard against which all claims made by instutions & individuals are measured.

If a priest, high ranking official or lay member of some Christian groups makes claims that are in conflict with traditional interpretations of scriptures or doctrine it is understood that their claims conflict with the accepted truth and therefore must be wrong. These groups also have an idea of God as completely unchanging in any way.

Mormons are different because 1) The Mormon theology poses a God that can and to some extent does change, not ontologically mind you, but in what God communicates to humans. and 2) In Mormon theology revelation trumps scripture. In other words the leader of the Church can receive new doctrines, commands, insights from God that can change doctrine and or change the meaning of scripture or how scripture is used etc.

For example in 1978 president Kimbal received revelation from God that African Americans SHOULD get the priesthood, despite a tradition in the church to deny it to them based on a scripture I quoted earlier in this thread. So the notion of truth for Mormons does not require a fixed, singualr meaning for doctrine or scripture. The "truth" can and does change in the church. The troubling things about this example is that it took a revelation to change a practice that was so clearly not-ethical and not mandated by the scripture in question. By 1978 instutional racism was well understood, different methods of analysis and criticism were avalble to readers of the text, so its particularly difficult to understand (at least for me) why this took so long to change, why something that should have been obvious required a revelation at all. Such cases are certainly a point of entry into an instutional criticism of the church and its patriarchy.

But in reality all churches see changes in their understanding of scripture and or changes in their doctrine as well but because they believe in a singular, universal, unchanging notion of truth, they don't recognize these changes as such. What they usually do is to state that earlier doctrine / preaching was a marginal or incorrect practice of a few people but it was not the "true" meaning or practice which of course is defined by the most current understanding. previous truths are marginalized and redefined in order to maintain the notion of the universal and unchanging.


fluxus


Dec 15, 2006, 6:12 PM
Post #104 of 113 (757 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 947

Re: [flamer] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

flamer wrote:
Ok sport'o...thing is you couldn't keep up past the first 100ft.

josh

I can easily climb a 1,000 feet or so of 5.10 - 5.11 in a day no problem, a series of 200 ft 5.11c pitches sounds like fun to me. On the other hand if you are talking about off-width, then I doubt I could go even 25ft, and if you are talking about friction slab I probably wouldn't even tie in.

it sounds like you are about to challenge me to a duel.


camhead


Dec 15, 2006, 6:17 PM
Post #105 of 113 (754 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20656

Re: [fluxus] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

fluxus wrote:
For example in 1978 president Kimbal received revelation from God that African Americans SHOULD get the priesthood, despite a tradition in the church to deny it to them based on a scripture I quoted earlier in this thread. So the notion of truth for Mormons does not require a fixed, singualr meaning for doctrine or scripture. The "truth" can and does change in the church. The troubling things about this example is that it took a revelation to change a practice that was so clearly not-ethical and not mandated by the scripture in question. By 1978 instutional racism was well understood, different methods of analysis and criticism were avalble to readers of the text, so its particularly difficult to understand (at least for me) why this took so long to change, why something that should have been obvious required a revelation at all. Such cases are certainly a point of entry into an instutional criticism of the church and its patriarchy.

It took until 1978, because most general authorities were on record as not wanting to appear to be catering to radical Civil Rights leaders. David O'McKay proposed giving blacks the priesthood in the late 50s, but was not successful for this reason.

Incidently, Ezra T. Benson repeatedly emphasized that Martin Luther King had been a stooge for the Russian communists, and that giving blacks the priesthood would be a victory for the godless soviets. Was that divine revelation?

Furthermore, the exclusion of blacks in the Church was based less on scripture (other than maybe the whole 'Mark of Cain' or maybe 'curse of Ham' thing), and more on prophets' revelations.

Now, you mormons...

"white and delightsome;" discuss, apologize, and justify.


flamer


Dec 15, 2006, 6:35 PM
Post #106 of 113 (748 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 2955

Re: [fluxus] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

fluxus wrote:
flamer wrote:
Ok sport'o...thing is you couldn't keep up past the first 100ft.

josh

I can easily climb a 1,000 feet or so of 5.10 - 5.11 in a day no problem, a series of 200 ft 5.11c pitches sounds like fun to me. On the other hand if you are talking about off-width, then I doubt I could go even 25ft, and if you are talking about friction slab I probably wouldn't even tie in.

it sounds like you are about to challenge me to a duel.

Duel huh?
Seems as if I made a suggestion that the 2 of us would make a good climbing team.....
Followed by a statement from you telling me how you were a much better climber than I.

So In the first place you have me extending an olive branch of sorts.....followed by an attack. I'm the one challenging? What did I miss?

Now I realise that our previous going's on were not of the nicest kind. However when I offer common ground, I get attacked. Then By responding to said attack, you attack back and try to turn it around....hmmmm.

I'm not even going to respond to what you said about climbing.....but I did have a chuckle...Thanks!

josh


flamer


Dec 15, 2006, 6:38 PM
Post #107 of 113 (743 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 2955

Re: [flamer] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Camhead...thanks for stepping in and eloquently doing what I obviously cannot.....

josh


price1869


Dec 15, 2006, 10:12 PM
Post #108 of 113 (719 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 28, 2005
Posts: 50

Re: [flamer] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXOh4g_FLIM


fluxus


Dec 15, 2006, 10:28 PM
Post #109 of 113 (715 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 947

Re: [camhead] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
It took until 1978, because most general authorities were on record as not wanting to appear to be catering to radical Civil Rights leaders. David O'McKay proposed giving blacks the priesthood in the late 50s, but was not successful for this reason.

Incidently, Ezra T. Benson repeatedly emphasized that Martin Luther King had been a stooge for the Russian communists, and that giving blacks the priesthood would be a victory for the godless soviets. Was that divine revelation?

Furthermore, the exclusion of blacks in the Church was based less on scripture (other than maybe the whole 'Mark of Cain' or maybe 'curse of Ham' thing), and more on prophets' revelations.

Now, you mormons...

"white and delightsome;" discuss, apologize, and justify.

Discuss sure, justify nope. I think we are making similar points. Clearly there was racism present in the leadership of the church of that era. Finding racism among older white men in the 50s & 60s, (not to mention the 70s, 80s, 90s and even today) was not exactly challenging. I wish that the leaders of the church were not effected by the historical context in which they live but they are, always have been, always will be. The OT is full of examples of brutal acts and teaching. How one deals with this, processes it spiritually, emotionally, and intellectually is a matter of personal importance.

in anycase Bensons attitude towards socialism was certainly not revelation. Remember that church leaders are just as flawed as the rest of us. Benson was a conservative ideologe. If I remember correctly he was pro-Macarthy. Politically and intellectually many of his views were suspect, repugnant, wrong. So there are a few different ways of dealing with that. I try to see the whole man. Try to come to terms with someone who was clearly a complex individual.

But also you don't need to go back to Benson to find such troubling views. I'm a socialist of the type defined by the project for radical democracy as described by political philosophers such as Laclaw and Mouffe (NOT what Benson attacked as socialism). I hear church members saying stupid things about liberals, socialists, the ACLU, democrats, homosexuals, etc all the time. Most go so far as to strongly conflate their political ideology with their theology (there was an absurd book published in 1965 called liberalism, conservatism and Mormonism that actually attempted to argue the theological superiority of right wing politics!)

Of course the difference is that these individual church members don't hold powerful positions in government and so they can't do much harm. Benson was a different story.

Anyway, fully adknowledging racist and politically regressive view among past and present church leaders / members. What do you think we should make of it all? Do you want to say that this is proff that the church is not a good church or that I should loose my faith? I think all it shows is that these people are human, very, very human and have a lot of spiritual growing to do.

I couldn't find any quotes from Benson concerning Dr. King so if you have a citation please pass it along. (Same goes for revelation regarding balcks not getting the priesthood. )


stymingersfink


Dec 16, 2006, 2:05 AM
Post #110 of 113 (707 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250

Re: [camhead] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

everything I need to know about mormons I learned from matt and treySmile

the nice thing is on sundays they go to their church, I go to mine.

The funny thing is, they built their big temple out of pieces of mine, but I got the better deal... it cuts down on the crowding at the crag on sundays. It was a fair trade, IMHO.


camhead


Dec 16, 2006, 8:43 AM
Post #111 of 113 (699 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20656

Re: [stymingersfink] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

fluxus:

Armand Mauss, All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage.

I'm still confused at how, when presented with scriptural ambiguities, you say "it's up to the prophet to interpret these confusing scriptures," but when presented with prophets' errors, you say "they are human, they make mistakes."


jcasper


Dec 16, 2006, 10:01 AM
Post #112 of 113 (684 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 23, 2005
Posts: 108

Re: [camhead] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
I'm still confused at how, when presented with scriptural ambiguities, you say "it's up to the prophet to interpret these confusing scriptures," but when presented with prophets' errors, you say "they are human, they make mistakes."

I can't believe I'm on my computer on a weekend. :) (so I'll make this short)

For my answer to this question go back a page to the paragraph I wrote that starts "So if a prophet can sometimes be wrong, what good are they as a prophet?" Also look back at a small exchange fluxus and I had around the turn of the page, where I conceded that I wasn't totally correct in how I phrased the role of a prophet in interpreting scripture. Sometimes a prophet will give a direct interpretation of a scripture, and its up to us to seek guidance from God to determine for ourselves if that interpretation is a correct (although maybe not the only correct) interpretation. However, other times a prophet expounds doctrine and we must use that doctrine (after confirmation from God of its truth) to further our understanding of the scriptures.


fluxus


Dec 18, 2006, 9:10 AM
Post #113 of 113 (639 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 947

Re: [camhead] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
fluxus:

I'm still confused at how, when presented with scriptural ambiguities, you say "it's up to the prophet to interpret these confusing scriptures," but when presented with prophets' errors, you say "they are human, they make mistakes."

I think you are confusing my posts with jcasper's. I certainly don't leave the interpertation of scriptures "up to" to the church leadership. and I doubt that I ever will use the term "confusing" in relation to scripture. I take reading, re-reading, interpertation, understanding historical context, learning the textual history etc. as the duty of everyone who engages sacred texts.

Did you present me with scriptural ambiguities? The last post I replied to contained none. It contained claims about racism in the leadership of the church during the 50s - 70s. A claim that I think is broadly accurate even if some of your specifics were not fully developed.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Community : The Soap Box

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook