Word of God

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Give me an example of something intellectual that should be in a church talk or lesson that isn't, that wouldn't take a nanosecond to digest. It's hard when you're put on the spot isn't it?

For example, what is revelation? What have other cultures described? How is it perceived? How is it misperceived? How does it mesh with preconceived notions of our own personal cultural awareness?

BY was a prophet but he was also a man of his generation. Many in his generation accepted without question that the races were not generally equal in all abilities and rights. BY apparently enforced this notion in adopting a flawed policy. Yet, we also accept matters as revelation as they relate to his calling.

How are we to differentiate between matters espoused over the pulpit which a prophet declares in General Conference as erroneous as opposed to matters accepted as canon?

If we look at any of the ancient texts, I would like to know to the best of our abilities, their origins, original languages, and many perspectives from which to examine the texts.

Originally Posted by jay santos

When I'm prepared to hear a message, I can find depth in just about anything. IMHO, Luke 15 has simple depth that blows away the "intelligent" discussions that take place here. But I imagine you disagree.

We haven't touched upon matter with any depth. Luke 15 is interesting, but I doubt any Church meeting has really touched upon it.

[jay santos]

i just typed for almost an hour to try to respond in a nice, gentle way that i thought might help, but i lost it. and i can't retype it all. i'll bring it up later.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

A simple phrase but one which perplexes me.

Simple things confuse the simple minded I know.

Are the "words of God" actually his words or our perceptions of his ideas?

How does he actually communicate? Telepathically igniting impulses within our brains which thereupon refer to language resources within the brain, making us believe we "hear" the word of God?

If these impulses are non-linguistic directed at the language resources within our brains, would explain why we have different interpretations, in addition to our traditional explanations?

The scroll of Job is interesting. How did that become the Word of God?

And why do scholars now believe there are two or three authors of the Isaiah? I know the traditional answers but still wonder.

Does God speak in a traditional sense? Is communication more subliminal?

Obviously, if a Divine Ruler speaks, it is incumbent upon his subjects to listen and to learn. Thus anything deemed the Word of God should be important.

However, the scriptures are so vastly different, from the Torah to the Talmud, to the New Testament Gospels, letters and gnostic writings.

D&C reads a lot like Leviticus and Numbers or the Qu-ran for that matter. Lots of dictation and instruction, very little additional information.

The Word of God is so varied, so flexible. Absent a spirit of interpretation, we are left for confusion.

I think it must be understood as a prophet filtering his understanding of God and God's communciations through the personal experiences, prejudices and beliefs of the prophet.

To me, this is how I explain the similarities between the Masonic temple ceremony and ours. Joseph was familiar with the Masonic ceremony through his brother. It makes sense to me that the Lord would reveal certain important truths and Joseph would then teach those truths to others through a framework that Joseph understood and was comfortable with (which means it isn't the only way we can be taught those truths, which is also why I think the ceremony continues to evolve).

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Well they don't answer much, unless I were a seventh grader. I can read and prepare a lesson in less than ten minutes based on the intellectual information provided in the average manual. That shouldn't be.

The average church talk takes about a nanosecond to digest. I agree that the Spirit is still often present and thus makes it worthwhile, but not much is intellectually challenging, or even to the point of answering many questions.

And the problem with simplicity is that they really don't answer questions. Simple answers are mere overviews to the real principles and applications. It's akin to looking a work problems through basic pre-algebraic math, when you really need differential equations. It's expecting Newtonian physics to function at the subatomic level.

Yes life is about prayer, doing good and keeping covenants. That's the executive summary, but not the full report.

I agree most church lessons aren't that facinating. I think it is a factor of the church being a global church but still wanting to hold onto homogeneity (which becomes increasingly difficult as the church grows). To obtain homogeneity, the church has to cater to the lowest common denominator, leading to overly simplistic lessons with Sunday school answers. A good teacher can overcome that problem and relate to the audience. But, we don't have a paid clergy so the number of good teachers in the church is limited.

On the other hand, the church approach has a lot of good aspects too. We don't wind up with the splintering problem the Catholics and others have faced (at least, not yet) and the church heirarchy is maintained.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

To me, this is how I explain the similarities between the Masonic temple ceremony and ours. Joseph was familiar with the Masonic ceremony through his brother.

Joseph was familiar with the ceremony because he himself was a Mason. He was the highest ranking Mason in Nauvoo.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

I'm amazed at the things you guys agonize over.

Yet here you are reading it.

He was hardly "agonizing". He's posing a question for discussion. Conveniently enough, he's done so on a board created for just that purpose.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

Joseph was familiar with the ceremony because he himself was a Mason. He was the highest ranking Mason in Nauvoo.

My recollection, though I could be wrong, is that he joined the Masons after he gave everyone the temple ceremony, not before, and that his only exposure to the Masons at that point was through his brother and friends.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

Yet here you are reading it.

He was hardly "agonizing". He's posing a question for discussion. Conveniently enough, he's done so on a board created for just that purpose.

lol! I seriously hate it when people discuss things on message boards. Discuss.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

lol! I seriously hate it when people discuss things on message boards. Discuss.

Discussing is overrated. I prefer fist-shaking.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Discussing is overrated. I prefer fist-shaking.

<picture Homer Simpson> Why I oughta...