quote:There's a reason why even after The Vision [D&C 76] was presented, it was pretty much ignored within the Church for pretty much over a decade.
And that reason is . . . . (I really want to know. I have no idea why it was ignored and I'm apparently not making some connection that you intended to be made. )
Especially with the deep ingrained Millennialism, and a very prevalent righteous indignation, it was much more convenient (and, umm, 'express') to spread the Voice of Warning with a Gather to Zion, or Else You'll Be Wiped Out dichotomy. All the persecution especially tightened up the "Us v. Them" mentality. It was not convenient to look into nor express the ramifications of degrees of glory for pretty much everyone at that time. Especially since , although some parts were hinted at, the full understanding of what Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom actually meant wasn't even publicly taught and interpreted until after Joseph's death. The ritual presentation of the Endowment wasn't even opened up to the Church body as a whole until after Joseph's death - this was a key part of expanding and re-interpreting (and re-understanding) the principles first hinted at and revealed in The Vision.
The Vision expressed a doctrine that was both not understood, and not particularly convenient (also, its initial proclamation probably played a key role in some of the early Kirtland violence). Therefore, it got the backburner.
quote: The only reason generally there appears to be a need to have this done and read into the text is out of a need to make it not contradict with later revelation. If we're okay with prophets not having a 21st Century understanding of the Full Picture, then it's okay to find expressions of inacomplete doctrinal understanding. A great deal of frustration and problematic scripture reading fell away when I got that concept.
There's a lot we can learn about the nature and process of revelation from that. Based on Joseph's expressions that things were being revealed that never before were revealed, I think we should expect to see incomplete and not-fully accurate expressions by earlier prophets and apostles. This doesn't disparage the scriptures or the prophets, it just bears stronger witness of the reality and importance of Continuing Revelation - and the fact that God uses humans and allows them to express new divine insights with their current understandings and terminology and ways and models of expressing things. Once we're ready to abandon an old model, he presents it. We shed the old one, and move on. We can see this happening over and over and over in the scriptures.
Good insight!
This makes it more laborious for us the readers though...This reminds of Alma chapter 40 when Alma is teaching about the "space betwixt the time of death and the time of the resurrection." and how often during this chapter he says things like the things I don't know about don't matter but what I do know is and I'm not 100% sure but I think and "I give it as my opinion" that so and so is true....
aagghh...
Good point though!
Posts: 110 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scripture is designed to be inconvenient. It's kind of why I roll my eyes at books called, "Book of Mormon Made Easier". The most insightful and beneficial books I've read have made the scriptures harder.
Posts: 935 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
I agree that the people of the Book of Mormon appear to have had no concept of degrees of glory. I can't say that they may not have had some sort of deeper concepts than what we derive from reading it. We do after all, fairly often derive some new connection between the Book of Mormon and ancient Judaism and how it makes more sense in light of such and so. I love those. So to say that they had what amounts to a traditional Christian apostasy view of "saved to heaven" or "damned to hell" for all eternity is probably as much of a stretch as to leave open the possibility that they had a fuller understanding in some sense.
But I personally doubt that they understood anything about the degrees of glory to the extent that we do.
Here's the point of interest: compare the words of the angel to King Benjamin, with Benjamin's expounding on it in the next chapter. Benjamin seems pretty clearly to believe that it's heaven or hell for all eternity, and seems to think that is exactly what the angel told him. From the angel's words, that not an unlikely assumption. However, knowing the further things we know, how would you interpret the words of the angel?
There are different degrees of revelation, with different degrees of purity, I believe. If an angel from the other side is speaking (and speaking by the Holy Ghost, as we are told they do), I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about. If a mortal prophet it speaking by the Spirit, it's going to depend to some extent on how in tune he is and how far he is able to translate the message into language that gets the points across. Giving a priesthood blessing is a perfect example of prophecy that we participate in. People experience the giving of a blessing differently, and I think the Lord adapts both how he says something, and chooses what he says, based on whoever it is who is giving the blessing.
For instance, if you really don't like a certain concept, that may be one thing relevant to the desires of the person receiving the blessing, but there are other things he could inspire you to say, he may only inspire you to say the things you will be receptive to, since you might really struggle with the Spirit if something too far out for you came to you. It's also true that the faith of the person receiving the blessing often influences how strongly and directly and clearly the blessing comes through you.
If Joseph Smith is giving a D&C style direct-dictation revelation, I put a lot of weight into it, as I do the words of an angel. If he, or anyone else, is giving a sermon involving inspiration, I've come to accept that even an inspired sermon is only so much inspired. Where every word isn't directly dictated through the Holy Ghost, you have room for error.
At the same time, I appear to differ from you in how you see later revelation. The way I see it, is that truth is truth, and it is eternal. It doesn't matter who said what first or last, or how often. What matters is which is true, and truth cannot contradict itself. So, although I really dislike wrestling around with scriptures and words of prophets to try to make sense of them, I find that occasionally, we outright have statements of high revelatory purity which disagree on the surface. I can either reject one (not the best option) or set the issue aside, or wrestle around with it. Usually I like to pray and wait for enlightenment. But in the end, if there is a high degree of purity, I'm pretty sure that I will see at the end how they all fit.
Example of a current dilemma of that sort: Moses 1:6 seems to be saying (by virtue of the "but") that the Only Begotten is not God. This is directly and clearly contradicted in multiple scriptures from both before and after this. I can provide the best examples if desired. So I either assume that this scripture isn't very pure in its inspiration, or that there is something I'm not understanding about it.
I personally think that Moses 1 is a scripture very pure in it's inspiration. It is a restoration of an actual experience that Moses had. It is, naturally, phrased in words that will make sense to us, but it's not a manufactured event. The Lord has no need to manufacture events. He just doesn't.
While the Book of Mormon prefers Hebrew Old Testament parallels, and the D&C (generally) prefers Greek New Testament usages, I'm not sure about the Book of Moses. The visions of Enoch have striking parallels with the Ethiopic Book of Enoch. But Moses 1, I just don't know where it's "coming from." But I think it's highly pure inspiration of an actual event...which gives me a theological statement which makes no sense.
I read that link about Monotheism in the Book of Mormon. There were some leaps of assumption in it that aren't necessarily justified. (And by that, I mean from a completely scholarly perspective. I make those sorts of leaps all the time, as a predominantly intuitive thinker.) Generally I liked it, but I get the impression there is more to the story.
Posts: 1229 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Enoch, you expressed a few places where we definitely differ in the way we understand and approach the scriptures. And of course, that's fine. I just wish to express where and how I feel we differ, so you can understand better where I'm coming from.
Based on what I have read from them and seen, my understanding is that there is a growing consesus among those in the Church History Department that the first-person-divine-dictation presentation of many of the documents in the Doctrine and Covenants is more to be taken as a rhetorical literary device than a verbatim transcript of vocalized divine communication . This is especially obvious with the Joseph Smith Papers with the manuscript revelation books and early published editions, which show that Joseph was quite fine with reguarly substantially altering (both personally, and others by assignment) the texts to coincide with developments in theology and practice - and at times just to sound better.
Why doesn't this (at times radical) altering of scripture bother me? Because I understand there to be a distinction between the revelation experience, and the scripture, which is the human-constructed attempt to express that revelatory experience drawing in their own language and experiences to give it substance.
I don't ever expect for the First Person Divine Dictation literary model to return in the Church - not because new revelations are not coming in, but because it is not viewed as a necessary (or expedient) way to present those revelations any more.
Basically, what Scripture becomes is our closest link to the initial revelatory experience. Just like when Nephi heard Lehi share his version of his revelatory experience. That account of the vision (the scripture) wasn't enough for Nephi - he needed to experience the revelation proper. And he did - and in seeing the same thing his father was shown, he, with his own different concerns and background, saw different things, and learned things that his father did not see. In short, I see Scriptures as catalysts for us to ask the questions we need to have our own spiritual witness and experiences of the experience that led to a prophet recording his version of it.
Joseph also felt fine in using a narrative/biblical construct to express truths. Most of the United Firm revelations were first published completely re-written to be presented as a Revelation to Enoch. This wasn't just simple substitition of code names, the whole context was changes. (References to Christ's second coming became references to the City of Enoch being taken up, etc - I wrote a little about this on my blog, and Chris Smith wrote a great article for this in the Claremont Journal of Mormon Studies, see "The Inspired Fictionalization of the 1835 United Firm Revelations" in the Journal - a pdf can be found on their site here). I view much of the JST as a form of inspired targum, or midrash. (see here) - a valid prophetic literary device (at play in several places in the Bible itself), which expanded scriptural texts with new relevant doctrines and pseudepigraphal stories for a new generation. (You make reference to Ethiopic Enoch - that itself is an example of a Pseudepigraphic text, where the writer used the personage of Enoch, and a familiar storyline to teach modern principles and warnings! It was definitely not written by an ancient ante-diluvian. See my post, The Book of Enoch: An Introduction)
I understand that this view of scripture can be very uncomfortable to many. But for me, it is incredibly inspiring, and makes perfect sense. It also sets Joseph very firmly in the prophetic tradition, doing what many scripture-writers have properly done before.
Yes, I believe Joseph and other prophets had true, powerful revelatory experiences - but these experiences occurred in a state beyond language, and thus all needed to be 'translated' into expressing that experience. In that way, all scripture - including that which was first recorded in English - is translation literature.
I think it's beautiful, challenging, and inspiring. And, on a far more personal and subjective level, is something I can personally relate with based on my own experiences.
Of course I'm open to the possibility that I'm completely wrong. Perhaps your model is more correct. I don't know. Just as you are speaking from your experience, I am speaking from mine. I do not in any way wish to give the impression I devalue or brush off the experience and insights you have had.
quote:So after the final judgement to those in the lower kingdoms how is progress allowed?
Anything I have to say on this topic is speculation. However, I'll use God's progress as a model, where God's progress (glory) is the bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. I presume that lessor beings assist in this goal. Therefore their progress is measured in how well they fulfill their role.
quote:Do you think progression is only allowed in the sphere of the lower kingdom they are assigned
Yes, at this time I believe that a telestial person progresses within the bounds of the telestial sphere.
quote:where no more knowledge will be able to be had as some knowledge only comes by that of experience
The learning new knowledge thing rears its head again. As I have previously stated, God is learning nothing new. Likewise, everybody no matter what kingdom they are in will very quickly (relative to an eternal perspective) know all that they can know. Progress is not measured by an increase in power and knowledge for anybody.
Boredom is not a function of doing the same thing over and over. Is God bored? He does the same thing over and over without end.
I am convinced that all it takes is a real desire (where a real desire is something that causes action and effort) to get to the Celestial kingdom. Therefore, those that go to the terrestrial or telestial kingdom go there because that is what their true desire is.
quote:Also do you think the people assigned to the lower kingdoms of glory will ever be able to progress to a higher kingdom of glory?
Short answer no. I don't know why this is so, but it seems to me that this phase of eternal life is unique in that we can change our desires. I suspect it's a function of not knowing everything. Now during this part of our eternal life we set our desires, and as the veil is removed and we come to learn what we knew, and as we gain whatever new knowledge we have yet to learn, our desire becomes more and more set.
In some ways we see this happening in our lives in this mortality. We speak of old people being set in their ways. I have no information to back this up, but I would be interested in seeing statistics for the age at which people are baptized (i.e. when a person changed their desire to follow God).
quote:Crazy theory time.
How do you reconcile these thoughts with Mark 5:2-13? If they had bodies why would they be seeking them?
Posts: 10857 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Anything I have to say on this topic is speculation.
Speculation is the best kind of things to talk about! I try as it seems all others on here do to base speculation upon as many scriptures and LDS leader comments etc.
quote: where no more knowledge will be able to be had as some knowledge only comes by that of experience
The learning new knowledge thing rears its head again. As I have previously stated, God is learning nothing new
I did not mean to apply that God was learning anything new but meant to imply that those entering into the kingdoms have things to learn.
quote: Boredom is not a function of doing the same thing over and over. Is God bored? He does the same thing over and over without end.
I think he may do the same plan of salvation over and over but I think the results are different every time so I would not think God would get bored.
quote: How do you reconcile these thoughts with Mark 5:2-13? If they had bodies why would they be seeking them?
So per my crazy theory time if Satan's plan were permitted to be carried out and if Satan's followers did take possession or receive bodies and at some point died meaning the spirit separated from the body just as we die here in this mortal phase and then the spirits who followed Satan after their mortal death I would assume go to a spirit world or maybe they just stayed here which I guess is where the spirit world is
quote: “Where is the spirit world? It is right here” (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 376).
also or be left with out a physical body and from what I have read it is desirable to have a physical body so that is why they would seek to possess a body even the body of a swine apparently was preferable over not being bodied.
Posts: 110 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote: if Satan's plan were permitted to be carried out
Sorry, didn't pick up on that. It's a whole different ball game if Satan and his followers went through with that plan.
There would be reason for them to tempt us. So, how much evil would we have gotten ourselves into if there had been no followers of Satan to tempt us?
Posts: 10857 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
The theory is that after their plan was done they were permitted to stay here to tempt us and continue to wage war etc.
As who was already on earth when Adam and Eve were in the Garden....Lucifer was here just doing what had done before.....doing what that had done before? His version of the plan of Salvation is my guess...
I may open this up as a new forum with something like DID GOD ALLOW SATAN TO DO HIS PLAN? or something and I would like some LDS theories on how the dinosaurs and cave man and other like creatures on this earth came to be here etc.
Posts: 110 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Based on what I have read from them and seen, my understanding is that there is a growing consesus among those in the Church History Department that the first-person-divine-dictation presentation of many of the documents in the Doctrine and Covenants is more to be taken as a rhetorical literary device than a verbatim transcript of vocalized divine communication . This is especially obvious with the Joseph Smith Papers with the manuscript revelation books and early published editions, which show that Joseph was quite fine with reguarly substantially altering (both personally, and others by assignment) the texts to coincide with developments in theology and practice - and at times just to sound better.
I don't really see the altering of manuscripts as evidence against God giving exact divine communications (at times).
Posts: 5047 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I see it as evidence that Joseph didn't see the words in his First-Person-Style revelations as being the exact ones spoken from God's lips - otherwise, why would he think it was okay to present committees to improve upon and later to change them?
Again, I have said I do believe they are the result and expression of a direct divine experience, and communicated knowledge. I'm just convinced that the language and form of the literature expressing his understanding of that communication is the language of Joseph waxing KJVish.
quote:I see it as evidence that Joseph didn't see the words in his First-Person-Style revelations as being the exact ones spoken from God's lips - otherwise, why would he think it was okay to present committees to improve upon and later to change them?
I can think of a lot of possible reasons. Here are just a few.
1. God later commanded changes to be made.
2. Joseph made mistakes in communicating the exact words, as did the scribes recording them. The editing process was meant to correct those mistakes, but could and did insert new mistakes.
3. The language was meant for a specific group or individual, and subsequent revisions made the language more applicable to more people.
4. God didn't care that the exact wording wasn't used.
etc....
quote:Again, I have said I do believe they are the result and expression of a direct divine experience, and communicated knowledge. I'm just convinced that the language and form of the literature expressing his understanding of that communication is the language of Joseph waxing KJVish.
Again, even granting this supposition, I don't see how that would be antithetical to God giving exact divine communications at times.
Ask yourself, was Joseph simply waxing KJVish when quoting Moroni? Did he ever edit the revelations given by angels?
Do the answers to those questions imply that the angels didn't really appear and didn't really communicate exact words but only impressions?
Posts: 5047 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Similar in a way to how I was taught that we need to repent now because even though we can repent as spirits, having made a decision here are mind is "set" when we get to the spirit world. While maybe it is possible that we could progress, it just doesn't happen because we become "set in our ways."
Doesn't that scripture just say that we bring with us the same spirit here and there, the same thoughts and desires, in opposition to the idea that we immediately become The Perfect Ideal, or otherwise? I don't get out of that that we're the same person... except for the fact that, unlike our spirits here on earth, we can't continue to refine our passions and desires and knowledge.
It speaks of continuity - not fixation. At least to my eyes. Which passage presents to you the 'fixed' unchangeable idea?
I do feel that most angelic visitations were visionary experiences. Hence, Joseph's siblings sleeping in the same room as him not disturbed by the bright light and repeated dialogue going on around them.
A true spiritual experience and communication, but a dialogue and vision that occurred more in the realm of pre-language consciousness, not in spoken and audible language. So yes, I feel that all expressed records of divine communication are generally filtered through memory, language limitations, and experience.
This also allows this revelatory event to be re-visited in memory, and to be understood in greater detail using later experiences and understanding. To see things not seen before (like instead of Nephi seeing new things that his Father didn't see, it would be More Experienced Joseph seeing things younger Joseph didn't catch the significance of).
The brain is astounding. Most of what we truly 'see' doesn't originate from our eyes, but from the brain. Imagine a divine injection of pure thought into our consciousness. A computer able to see and display what our brain sees (this has been done!) would be unable to distinguish something literally physical in front of us, and a vision , or dream communicated into our consciousness.
I truly do feel this would allow a vision recipient to understand (and visualize!) the same experience in drastically different ways as they review the memory at different parts in their life with a wider palate. The experience didn't change. They did.
Everything we experience gets filtered through our memory, language limitations, and experiences. That is besides the point.
The question was if the vision happened. Whether or not Moroni appeared physically, spiritually, in a dream, or the dream was sent by God, is irrelevant. The question was whether the vision actually happened, and whether it was of God.
But regardless, your assertion that the dialogue in the vision occurred in the realm of pre-language consciousness is not only without evidence, but seems to run counter to how Joseph himself described the vision.
We've all had dreams where we talk to people using actual words. Whether we later remember those words correctly, or those words were influenced by our brains, is irrelevant to the question of whether there were actual words used or not.
Moroni repeated his words 4 times, quoting specific scriptures. To claim that the dialogue existed without explicit words is puzzling to me. I admit that the the vision could have existed entirely in Joseph's mind, and the dialogue could have been the product of Joseph's interpretation of signals sent by God that had to go through some unknown process in Joseph's brain to be turned into words. But this possibility seems no more (and in my opinion, a lot less) likely than God sending those words. But regardless, Joseph's brain did record actual explicit words in the vision.
quote:The brain is astounding. Most of what we truly 'see' doesn't originate from our eyes, but from the brain. Imagine a divine injection of pure thought into our consciousness. A computer able to see and display what our brain sees (this has been done!) would be unable to distinguish something literally physical in front of us, and a vision , or dream communicated into our consciousness.
I truly do feel this would allow a vision recipient to understand (and visualize!) the same experience in drastically different ways as they review the memory at different parts in their life with a wider palate. The experience didn't change. They did.
I agree with all of this, but again it is irrelevant. When I type to you, your brain is processing light patterns. You interpret those light patterns in specific ways as words. Those words hold meanings that might not even correspond to what I meant. You may later not be able to precisely reconstruct what I sent. But none of that changes the fact that I am sending you specific words.
Why do you not think God can communicate as we do, when He says that he does communicate that way? Why do you want to blame Joseph for any imperfections in the communication, when the imperfections remain whether or not God used actual words?
I suppose there are advantages to revelations only being given in pure form via impressions of the spirit imparting pure knowledge, that is only messed up later as we try to remember and understand. But there are also advantages to revelations being given word for word. I have (I believe) experienced both types (sometimes together). For example, I believe I've been told to say some precise things during blessings, and other times I've only had impressions of what to say. I'm just surprised that you seem to be denying the possibility of one of the two types.
Both types are subject to later revision. Even if God communicates something word-for-word that doesn't mean it is infallibly accurate, and not subject to later improvement.
posted
To put it another way: Why can the resurrected Christ use specific words when communicating to the Nephites (along with spiritual impressions/communication) but that not be the case in revelations to Joseph?
Posts: 5047 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Everything we experience gets filtered through our memory, language limitations, and experiences. That is besides the point.
The question was if the vision happened. Whether or not Moroni appeared physically, spiritually, in a dream, or the dream was sent by God, is irrelevant. The question was whether the vision actually happened, and whether it was of God.
This is something we both agree on. And as you pointed out, this is the most important part.
quote: But regardless, your assertion that the dialogue in the vision occurred in the realm of pre-language consciousness is not only without evidence, but seems to run counter to how Joseph himself described the vision.
I'd say the circumstances of the Moroni vision - in a tiny room, with several of his siblings sleeping there crammed close next to him, serves as evidence to me that the blinding light and all-night-long dialogue was not something that would have been able to be visually or audibly experienced by bystanders. This points as evidence to me of a visionary experience.
quote:We've all had dreams where we talk to people using actual words. Whether we later remember those words correctly, or those words were influenced by our brains, is irrelevant to the question of whether there were actual words used or not.
Actually, this is exactly the point. Dreams are raw thought translated through our experience and available symbols and vocabulary.
quote:Moroni repeated his words 4 times, quoting specific scriptures. To claim that the dialogue existed without explicit words is puzzling to me. I admit that the the vision could have existed entirely in Joseph's mind, and the dialogue could have been the product of Joseph's interpretation of signals sent by God that had to go through some unknown process in Joseph's brain to be turned into words.
I understand that it's puzzling. But it's not an unknown process. Pre-languange (or mentalese) is something being studied, and tested.
quote: But this possibility seems no more (and in my opinion, a lot less) likely than God sending those words. But regardless, Joseph's brain did record actual explicit words in the vision.
Of course, I'm not contesting that his brain registered those words. I tend to think that if there is already a physical method in our brains conducive to recieving and interpreting 'pure intelligence' that God would use it. Especially since communicating pure intelligence and ideas and concepts and nudges and confirmations seems to be the primary way we teach the Spirit communicates with us, and how even the current prophets and apostles tend to have their revelations described.
quote:I'd say the circumstances of the Moroni vision - in a tiny room, with several of his siblings sleeping there crammed close next to him, serves as evidence to me that the blinding light and all-night-long dialogue was not something that would have been able to be visually or audibly experienced by bystanders. This points as evidence to me of a visionary experience.
Whether the experience was visionary is irrelevant; just as it is irrelevant whether we communicate through the spoken word, the written word, through sign-language, or some other way.
God communicated information. The question is why you don't think it could not have involved English words (perhaps encoded in some way).
Also, you seem to have gotten caught up in the specifics of the Moroni experience. Use any other non-visionary angelic experience if you like.
quote:Actually, this is exactly the point. Dreams are raw thought translated through our experience and available symbols and vocabulary.
That may be part of how dreams happen, but it is not what dreams are.
Is the dream the processes which produced it, the actual experiencing of it including the translation of thoughts into words, or just the remembering of the experience?
To claim that there are not specific words used in a dream, because those words arose as processes in the brain, would be to make a logical error.
quote:
quote:Moroni repeated his words 4 times, quoting specific scriptures. To claim that the dialogue existed without explicit words is puzzling to me. I admit that the the vision could have existed entirely in Joseph's mind, and the dialogue could have been the product of Joseph's interpretation of signals sent by God that had to go through some unknown process in Joseph's brain to be turned into words.
I understand that it's puzzling. But it's not an unknown process. Pre-languange (or mentalese) is something being studied, and tested.
You seem to have misunderstood what puzzled me. It is not the fact that Joseph's brain was involved in analyzing, interpreting, and remembering the vision. What puzzles me is your assertion that the vision never got beyond the pre-language centers of the brain.
God communicated in some language. You seem concerned with the idea that the language used could have been English (possibly encoded in some way Joseph's brain could then decode it). Why?
quote:Of course, I'm not contesting that his brain registered those words.
Okay, slow down a minute.
The thing that sparked this discussion in the first place was that I didn't find the fact that revelations were edited to be an indication that the revelations were not received as first-person communications in the English language.
Yet now you seem to be telling me that that is perhaps precisely how Joseph's brain recorded (at least some of) the revelations, as communications using precise words.
quote: I tend to think that if there is already a physical method in our brains conducive to recieving and interpreting 'pure intelligence' that God would use it. Especially since communicating pure intelligence and ideas and concepts and nudges and confirmations seems to be the primary way we teach the Spirit communicates with us, and how even the current prophets and apostles tend to have their revelations described.
I don't understand why this communication could not also involve words in the English language.
Yes, the prophets speak of small nudges. They also speak about direct commands, that come as words into their minds.
In every sacrament meeting we try to communicate spiritually with each other via the medium of the spoken word. Why do you seem to want to divorce that spoken word from spiritual communications attached to it?
Posts: 5047 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'd say the circumstances of the Moroni vision - in a tiny room, with several of his siblings sleeping there crammed close next to him, serves as evidence to me that the blinding light and all-night-long dialogue was not something that would have been able to be visually or audibly experienced by bystanders. This points as evidence to me of a visionary experience.
Whether the experience was visionary is irrelevant; just as it is irrelevant whether we communicate through the spoken word, the written word, through sign-language, or some other way.
God communicated information.
Once again, I think it's clear we agree on this.
quote: The question is why you don't think it could not have involved English words (perhaps encoded in some way).
A combination of experience, and study of the nature of the transmission and recording of scriptural texts and revelation in general contributes to this.
quote:Also, you seem to have gotten caught up in the specifics of the Moroni experience. Use any other non-visionary angelic experience if you like.
To be fair, this is the experience you brought up to me. And it serves a perfect example of an experience that, if physical and audible, would have naturally led a specific result that didn't apparently occur.
Just as we have an example of a vision being distributed simultaneously to Jospeh and Sidney (an experience which left Sidney exhausted - his brain was working overtime making sense of and translating what he was experiencing!), I see no reason why visionary experiences involving angelic messengers could not also be communal visions (such as the spiritual experience of the 3 Witnesses, said to be visionary, occur with their 'spiritual eyes', and involve the demonstration of an angel).
quote:
quote: Actually, this is exactly the point. Dreams are raw thought translated through our experience and available symbols and vocabulary.
That may be part of how dreams happen, but it is not what dreams are.
Is the dream the processes which produced it, the actual experiencing of it including the translation of thoughts into words, or just the remembering of the experience?
It's actually a good question. Let's say a dream occurs in three phases:
1. The brain spewing out random sub-consciouse concepts and images. 2. The brain works to have it make sense, and translates it into conscious speech, filling in 'logical' gaps where it is needed to comprehend. At time, the very nature of filling in the gaps triggers or launches new imagery, and the process continues as a cycle. 3. In the morning, we try to recall the dream. At time, phrases from the dream can be vivid. Most of the time, the vividness mostly fades, and we are left with general impressions, which also tend to quickly fade, although, of course, there are significant exceptions to this.
I think in most cases, the same basic steps apply to Revelation: 1. Raw information, concepts, or 'intelligence' comes into the mind. 2. The brain works to translate into consciousness, make sense of, and fill in gaps based on already present 'working materials' (aquired knowledge, language, uncontested assumptions, etc) 3. Now, we are left to express or record the presentation of that experience in written or spoken words.
I want to give a personal example. When I was serving as a missionary, there would be times where I would feel impressions of counsel directed towards myself - things to remember, things to focus on, things to avoid, etc. When I recorded this experience in my journal, I recorded it as a first-person dictation addressed to me, from the Lord, even though that was not how I actually experienced it. The content was the same - but presenting it this way made it more forceful and direct, and less possible for me to ignore. When I read it later, it very forcefully spoke to me, calling me out. And comforting me. I view those writings in my journal as sacred, and personal scripture to me. But not by any means infallible, or with any relevance to anyone else.
This was before I had even considered that this might be what was going on with the composition of the Doctrine and Covenants. The experience later had a great impact on my understanding of the nature of revelation and the writing and crafting of scripture. They are experiences which made my discovery of the nature of the development of the D&C as not just natural, but in the way of, "Well, of course that's how it happened!"
Maybe this will help express my view of things, and why I approach this as I do.
Yes, I recognize that just because I experienced something one way doesn't mean it's the only way, or that Joseph must have had the same experience. However, to me, it appears not only perfectly consistent, but the most consistent, and the model with the most exlpanatory power to cover many regularly expressed idiosyncracies with the text.
Brant Gardner's The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon presented an amazingly well-researched and argued book that expressed the Book of Mormon translation process as something extremely consistent with this model - showing a powerful consistency in the process of reception and communication of all restoration scripture.
I highly, highly recommend either buying this book, or picking it up from the Library.
Posts: 935 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:In every sacrament meeting we try to communicate spiritually with each other via the medium of the spoken word. Why do you seem to want to divorce that spoken word from spiritual communications attached to it?
In my experience, every time a General Authority comes to visit, he, without fail, has said something to the extent of, "When you take notes, don't write down what I say. Write down what your pondering of my words prompts the spirit to tell you. The spirit is the teacher - I'm just trying to help connect you to that source."
It also remind me of Henry Eyring (Pres. Eyring's father) statement of what he does when he hears a boring or disastrous Sacrament meeting talk - finds out what message or idea the speaker was trying to communicate, and then gives himself a sermon and time of pondering on that topic. He said this way, he'd never had an unedifying or boring sacrament talk experience
I very much view the spoken words as a link between the divine message, and the spiritual knowledge itself. They should attempt to explain the understood experience and knowledge, and serve to guide us to having that experience ourselves, and not be viewed as simply the end of the experience.
Again, I have no doubt that some of the most boring, badly-presented word-wise sacrament meeting talks are the honest and diligent expression of inspired and sacred spiritual understanding. While the words generally point us towards that sacred truth, at times, they can also get in the way and serve to obscure it as well. "If they are faults, they are the faults of men." - the words are the "box" - not the "pearl".
I hope this clarifies a bit my perspective on this.
Posts: 935 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't get out of that that we're the same person
What is a person if it's not the sum total of their desires?
Looking at the scripture in context and with the commentary, it seems clear to me that what is being communicated is exactly the concept I was referring to. Which is that whatever pattern we set for our personalities in this phase of our eternal existence is the same pattern that will remain with us for the remainder of our eternal existence.
Also, to intrude on your conversation with ZF. Just as God caused a deep sleep to come upon the Lamanites, Joseph's brothers may have been in a deep sleep when Moroni was visiting.
Seems to me your conversation with ZF boils down to a nature of reality conversation. I have what I believe is the same question as ZF, which is why does it matter? Seems to me God can communicate in several different ways. Each way serving a certain purpose. My perception is that you are limiting the way that God can communicate with us.
Posts: 10857 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't get out of that that we're the same person
What is a person if it's not the sum total of their desires?
The full quote from me was, " I don't get out of that that we're the same person... except for the fact that, unlike our spirits here on earth, we can't continue to refine our passions and desires and knowledge."
As the rest of the post and my other answers said, I do believe we're the same person, the same person who, here, is able to continue to refine our passions and desires and knowledge. I don't read from the scripture that everything about our person is the same, but without the ability to refine.
quote:My perception is that you are limiting the way that God can communicate with us.
We're often accused of limiting what God can do because we believe he is a real person in space and time, and can't create things ex-nihilo.
There is a difference between limiting what God can do, and allowing increased (revealed?) knowledge to help us understand more clearly how God does what he does.
Don't we hold as a principle that if there's a natural way to do something, God generally isn't going to bypass those ways to do it, but rather to work within it?
I don't think there's anything blasphemous or limiting to gain a greater understanding of how the world (and God) works. To more clearly understand is not to limit. In fact, I would think understanding things closer to how God understands things would bring one closer to him.
The idea of creating things out of nothing is indeed an extraordinary power, and is, theoretically, greater than the ability to oversee and organize things that already inherently exist. If it was possible to create things out of nothing, then it would be limiting God to declare that he can't do that, and that he merely chooses to organizes things. But if the ability to create out of nothing is not true, or a misunderstanding, does it really limit God to say that he can do the best most-possible thing rather than the coolest-conceivable thing?
posted
We can agree to disagree, because when it says, when we are confronted with that crisis (i.e. the truth is presented in an undeniable fashion) and we won't repent. That tells me that we make the same decision when presented with the crisis as we did here on this earth, or in other words our true desires do not change. Why they don't change is irrelevant, but it is clear to me that now is the time of change.
BTW, The full quote from me was I didn't quote the full text out of compactness, not lack of relevance.
Why bring up ex-nihilo creation? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Also, I'm not saying don't try to understand how God communicates. Rather it seems to me that you're saying that Moroni wasn't in the physical proximity of Joseph. Further, that such a message delivery doesn't happen.
Or, even if you allow that Moroni was physically there, that he didn't communicate using a verbal mechanism (i.e. cause vibrations in the air which were received by Joseph through his ears).
It seems to me that you're saying that communication with God only happens spirit to spirit and the perception of that communication takes varying forms. Was Moroni physically in the room, you say no, I say maybe. And it is that difference in which I say you seem to be limiting how God communicates.
quote:Here's the point of interest: compare the words of the angel to King Benjamin, with Benjamin's expounding on it in the next chapter. Benjamin seems pretty clearly to believe that it's heaven or hell for all eternity, and seems to think that is exactly what the angel told him. From the angel's words, that not an unlikely assumption. However, knowing the further things we know, how would you interpret the words of the angel?
1. Angel delivers a message to Benjamin 2. Benjamin recalls the angelic message in a highly charged speech. 3. Mormon, hundreds of years later and with new doctrinal thoughts and insights, presents a version of Benjamin's speech. 4. Joseph translates/transmits a 19th Century english version/expression of Mormon's abridgment of Benjamin's speech of a divine communication.
So we have the angel's words coming through Joseph's understanding of Mormon's abridgment-revision of Benjamin's speech before we get back to the original divine experience.
I don't know what the angel said. But we can get glimpses of how the transmission of that experience were understood and used by the different involved prophetic parties. (Remember - I advocate that it is the priority and authority of prophets to re-write and re-appropriate and re-contextualize the words and events in the lives of other prophets to express relevant or new understanding - just look at what Nephi did with Isaiah's words in 2 Nephi 26-27! For me, there is so much that the Book of Mormon teaches us about the nature of scripture, and how we read and approach and make it part of ourselves.
Now, I don't believe that the more ancient or original a text, the closer it is to Absolute Truth. I believe righteous prophets have gotten things sincerely wrong.
The best thing that it does do, however, is help us understand how the ancients understood things,and what questions and concerns they had and were specifically responding to. (I see the Book of Job especially as a major critique of earlier prophetic expressions of "The righteous prosper, the wicked suffer and die")
I believe prophets have and do take old scriptures and events and breath new ahistorical life into them, to teach newly understood and revealed truth, and to address their relevant questions and concerns.
It's one of the key reason why I think more in terms of prophetic experience, then taking divine dictation. Our struggles, questions, and answers are part of the work of revelation - revelation in and of itself is a perfect combination of the work/grace partnership, IMO.
The message is given by grace. It often takes work to find the intended meaning and significance behind that act of grace.
For example, I think it's clear that when Joseph recognizes he saw two personages in his Vision, he didn't immediately - either in 1820 or even 1835 - know also the fact that they were both bodies of flesh and bone. If so, his allowance of Sidney Rigdon's description of the Godhead consisting of two persons (1 of spirit (Father), 1 of body (Son)) in the then-canonized 1835 Lectures on Faith would be counter productive.
I think this is a key reason why the Church is not quick to canonize (apart from the latest announcement of a policy-shifting revelation 34 years ago, the latest canonical text we have is from 94 years ago in 1918!) and why manuals go out of print and are, from time to time, doctrinally revised. It's why Joseph revised the Bible, thought he was finished, and then intended to keep on revising and updating it further on his life. It's why the D&C was viewed as fully revisable. There was a fear of creating a set creed, "Go here, and no further" in a Church built and designed around seeking (and willing to accept) further revelation, clarification, correction, and enlightenment.
I know this is all a very long answer to a short question. But again, I hope it better helps understand the perspective by which I approach the nature of scripture and revelation, and why it just seems to make sense to me.
I also don't want anyone to think I think less of those who hold other positions. I am perfectly fine with agreeing to disagree, as long as I feel my position is accurately understood
posted
If you're saying that because we acknowledge God has limits in creation it's perfectly reasonable for other limits to be discovered. I understand, however, just want to make clear that's what's happening.
Also, seems to me that the following questions need to be addressed when discussing a limit:
What law is violated if the limit did not exist?
Is it just a point-of-view argument?
Minor derail, a thought occurs to me about ex-nihilo creation. Now we know that matter and energy are equivalent. If God can create matter from energy, would that be ex-nihilo? Would it ever have been ex-nihilo (e.g. pre-Einstein)?
Posts: 10857 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
I don’t disagree with the material in your original response to my last post. I took a look at most of those links. I found your personal experience with the story of the Restoration to be very cool.
Where I would disagree with your further elaborated points, is much along the same line as Zeta-Flux, who expressed it better than I would have been able to.
I am a mystic first; a philosopher and academic after that. That very reason is why it takes me quite a bit of effort to “translate” my thoughts into the clear, rational language of academia. (Although when I took the time, my professors felt that A’s were in order.) So I have no problem with the general method of revelation which you are referring to. Where I strongly differ, however, is with the idea that revelation doesn’t also sometimes come in other ways.
In my own experiences I’ve had numerous instances of revelations coming as pure intelligence, and very poignant instances of revelations coming as exact phrasing, not chosen by me, not studied out in my mind until it clicked, and not later revised. I will say that I most value revelations which include as many different forms, aspects, types, and modes of revelation as possible within a single revelatory experience.
Philosophically and intuitively, I feel a strong desire for both a subjective mystical experience of truth (which comes naturally to me in more than one mode) and a tangible component to the Lord’s relationships with us—both physical and historical. Just as we are body and spirit, souls existing both in a world of physical history and universal spiritual truths, it seems a more complete relationship to have a God who interacts with us in the same way.
Miracles are perfect parallels. I’m not sure if you believe in miracles with a physical aspect or not, but I believe that they are very real, and can be extremely dramatic. The bodily resurrection is the archetypal example, and many more examples still take place in the world today.
Because of my knowledge of how things the Lord can and does on occasion work through physical means, I consider it extremely likely to be how he is working when he reveals to a prophet a story from the past, even if that story is revealed for its direct evidence. If King Benjamin really gave the sermon, regardless of words, and Joseph could have (and may have) conveyed it to us even if there had been no plates in his presence at the time, could not his account of the experiences of Moses and Enoch actually have restored a true account, regardless of precise words or minor details, as the variances in the synoptic Gospels do not indicate that Jesus was not actually there, or that the events didn’t actually occur? And if they could have, would it not be more of a complete and full experience for him so to do, connecting us directly to the ancient’s lives, rather than solely to the spiritual relevance of those lives?
I feel a strong desire to seek to understand how deeply intertwined and manifested in all things are the Lord’s interactions and relationships with us. He chose a literal people, a family with its own history, with ongoing academic realization of the convergence with accepted historical accounts, in order to manifest himself to us, in addition to speaking directly to our souls. He speaks to all people in their own language spiritually. The ancient Hindu philosophers developed ideas that bear a mark of truth. Chinese and East Asian ancient religion bears witness to a deeper understanding of a supreme being than otherwise one might expect. However, he specifically chose Israel, Abraham, Enoch, Adam. Unique of all of world religion, the traditions based on these bear a genealogical, definite historical testimony. These accounts are accurate, they say. A cloud of glory came upon Sinai they declare. The eyes of the blind saw after Jesus touched them with his saliva and the earth. The lame stood up and lept after Peter spoke to him. How is it a challenge to the Spirit to say that He appears in his literal flesh, and that on occasion, one who is sanctified by the spirit through the ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood, is prepared, and stands physically in His presence, “face to face, as one man speaketh to another”? Is it not a higher privilege to feel connected to the words of a Man whose voice causes the dead to stand up and rise from their graves in the flesh, than to one whose voice appears never to transcend the boundary of the mind?
Again, I recognize your deep spiritual joy in that which you have received, and can appreciate it. Are you not, perhaps, overcome by it, that other aspects seem irrelevant, needless, and therefore you cannot appreciate them?
Because I have been very edified by the knowledge you’ve been able to add to the discussions I’ve experienced so far, I’d sincerely recommend an openness to a consideration of a fuller understanding of how He speaks with and relates to us.
I feel that His further presence in the physical and historical sphere demonstrates that He, the light of truth, is in all things and through all things.
Posts: 1229 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:Philosophically and intuitively, I feel a strong desire for both a subjective mystical experience of truth (which comes naturally to me in more than one mode) and a tangible component to the Lord’s relationships with us—both physical and historical. Just as we are body and spirit, souls existing both in a world of physical history and universal spiritual truths, it seems a more complete relationship to have a God who interacts with us in the same way.
I would think in a very real way, that is what I had described - that which is spiritual (the message) combining with that which is natural (our brain and cognitive abilities).
I'm not going to deny those who have had experiences like you've expressed. Perhaps I've done a poor job of expressing my position, but I don't view your experiences as being contradictory by what I have tried to explain. I, too, have strong experiences where I believe I have had a strong specific phrase or direction forcefully present itself to my mind.
My main position is that I think there is much, in my opinion, that points towards this being the way the documents we have in the Doctrine and Covenants were crafted. It was originally in response to your note of them being 'more pure' forms of revelation that I responded. I presented why I did not feel this to be the case.
I do know that at times when I work to explain or defend one particular principle or idea, it can seem like I marginalize or reject all others. This is not intended, and may just be a poor part of how I communicate (I try very hard to be clear, and respectful!).
Of course there are anomalies and things that I cannot even begin to explain. The very concept and implied logistics of Resurrection as popularly taught and described baffle me more than any other 'key' doctrinal principle. It's an element I believe in as a principle, as an article of my faith, but do not place faith in any of the explanations or descriptions which have been given, if that makes any sense. I believe in a Resurrection - I have no idea, however, what that really, practically, actually means. All the descriptions I've seen have massive logical flaws or raise more questions than answers. (For this reason, I hate talks where individuals tell us what the Resurrection means, and describe it. That, to me, isn't edifying. My wife tends to feel the same way.)
The concept of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, with the idea continued from Moses 1 of the Genesis 1 and 2 dual and very strongly-seamed creation accounts being actually originally one unified story with talk about a spirit creation is beyond problematic if we're thinking of uncovering an original ancient version. That alone makes it impossible for me to even consider the popular concept that we're getting an actual literal history of an actual Moses writing an authentic ancient Proto-Genesis.
Yet, I do believe that material, and the Bible Revision project in general, are inspired, beneficial efforts, conmtaining powerful new revelatory principles and ideas ,fully and extremely worthy of their Scriptural status. I sustain them of being a result of authentic divine inspiration.
I do not, however, believe it to be history. I can't. I once did, but I can't now. I do not see the benefit of believing it to be history, and find far more problems that would arise for me from an insistence that it is.
Again, this does not at all mean that I view it as being 'false', 'made up', 'a lie' or anything of the sort. It doesn't mean I look down on, or feel condescending towards those who do. I want to make this clear, and hope very strongly that nothing I say makes it appear that I do. Rather, from my experiences, I see it as an authentic literary and prophetic tradition of bringing new life to the works of earlier sacred writ. It very literally makes it Living Scripture. I sustain it as being inspired, and presenting ideas, principles, and calls to repentance that can and do bring one to Christ. I find it beautiful, and complicated, and challenging.
And yes, I do believe that authentic physical messengers of God do minister and have ministered on the earth.
posted
Taalcon, Thanks for answering my question (waaaay up the page!). Also, I went looking at mentalese and now I'm off on a fascinating voyage of discovery. Sparky
Posts: 2712 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
There is a scripture that grasshopper (when he used to post here) pointed out to me that bears on your discussion with Taalcon. D&C 137, which speaks of how God judges us according to what we would have done.
-------
Taalcon,
Thank you for taking the time to try and explain your position. I appreciate you also pointing out the places where we do agree. Let me point out one further place.
Suppose for a moment that God did write with His own finger on a table of stone, in a fallen human language. Would that imply those words were "infallible"? Would they never be subject to revision? The answer is no. No more than Joseph acting as the mouthpiece of God. "Whether by my own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."
What Joseph spoke, in the English language, was the word of the Lord. The same as if God himself had said those words.
And yet they corrected it, expanded it, worked with it. God could (and, in essence, did) speak those very words; through His servant.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Some speculation is more speculative than other speculation
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
