By John C.
Today’s game features a battle of two LDS academics:
Lowell Bennion was the first director of the LDS Institute of Religion at the University of Utah and a professor of Sociology. His biography is reviewed here and here and who is quoted here. A brief biography is given here and here is a collection of works by him.
Truman Madsen is an emeritus professor of Philosophy at BYU and was the Richard L. Evans chair of Christian Understanding. He has written several books on LDS doctrine, including, most famously, a series of lectures on Joseph Smith.
Please vote to the left and comment below.
By John C.
In March, as you know, we will be running a tournament of sorts. I would like to take some time and explain the schedule and the rules:
Read more »
By David J
So, the KJV isn’t the best translation one could use (see Ronan’s post here). Although it’s very good, the authors of the KJV often took liberties in translation where perhaps they should not (Isa. 26:19, anyone?). I imagine this is OK, given that much of what we know of the ancient languages today may not have been known back in the late 1500s to early 1600s. They did the best they could given what they knew at the time.
But there’s one verse where I wince at the KJV translators, and it came up last Sunday in Sunday School. I didn’t mention it to the class, and I lament somewhat for not saying anything.
Genesis 12:1 reads: “Now Yahweh said unto Abram: ‘Go from your land, and from your relatives, and from the house of your fathers unto THE land which I will cause you to see.’”
One stark difference, which I emphasized here, is the definite article on the word “land.” Indeed, the KJV translators went with the anarthrous translation of the word, and I believe this to be erroneous.
First, the concept of “land” in the OT is immense. It is the locale of Israel’s salvation and kingdom; so much so that even today is one of the major causes for war and oppression in the Middle East. A cursory reading of the book of Joshua would reveal the importance of the conquest of the land, and of its allotment to the tribes of Israel. The idea of land reserved for God’s people continued through the tradition, had a place in the united and divided monarchies, and even is part of the reason for the rise of a resurrection doctrine in Jewish lore. “Resurrection? David J, have you lost your marbles?” Yes, resurrection doctrine. But that’s for another post later on (when I review N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God).
Next, the idea of being gathered into the land is one of the high points of Biblical (OT) theology. But this isn’t just any land, this is God’s chosen space unto the children of Israel. It’s a big deal, and they all know it, even today. Curiously, the translators get it right in Gen. 12:7, where the adjectival demonstrative “this” is employed in conjunction with “the land.”
One would do well to read the indefinite article, “a,” as “the” when reading from Genesis 12:1. The KJV (and its sister ship, the NKJV), so far as I can tell, are the only translations I have in my possession which contain the indefinite article.
I’m not saying “lets sack the KJV,” (well, on this post, anyway) but I am saying that other translations often reveal insights that the boys of the KJV missed.
Canaan isn’t just “any” land, it’s THE land.
By John C.
Hellmut Lotz always inspires thought in me. Usually, I try to find the quickest way to contradict him (as I don’t usually agree with his conclusions). He came to a conclusion today over here and I decided that to question him on it would constitute a threadjack. So, instead, I am poaching.
Hellmut said, “As for God, there is no reason to believe that he or she requires our devotion. We cannot hurt God. If our devotion were important then God would have an obligation to let us know. ”
My initial response is, if we cannot hurt God, why does he weep? In the LDS tradition, God does feel personal sorrow when confronted with his wayward children. Should Hellmut’s statement be construed as a denial of that belief?
I doubt it. I think what Hellmut meant was that God’s salvation isn’t ultimately dependent upon human activity, which appears to be standard Mormon doctrine. Nonetheless, the question intrigues me. So, I put it to you, in three parts.
1. Can we hurt God in any way, aside from the causation of sorrow due to our sins?
2. If our sin is the only manner in which we hurt God, does that alter our perception of our purpose in coming to earth?
3. If our sin is the only manner in which we hurt God, does that alter our image of God?
By John C.
Ever since I started the Historical Mormon Smackdown thing last year, I have had a dream. I have entitled it: March Mormon Doctrine Madness.
We have painstakingly come up with 64 influential forces in current Mormonism, have divided them into 4 categories, and have ranked them from one to sixteen. We now present them to the bloggernacle world to vote upon. The criterion: Which is the more influential force in Mormonism today?
Having said that, I think it will be a vote for #2. I am going to explicitly take Jesus Christ and the Atonement out of the voting because I think that they would win hands-down. I am leaving Joseph Smith because every bracket needs its Duke or UConn.
There is the possibility that some will be offended by this and see it as trivializing the gospel. While there is some truth to that, I also think being forced to make hard but nonsensical choices is a good way to get at what we (individually) really believe and why.
So, starting forming pools and start making predictions. For that matter, start talking about the obvious biases of the selection committee. We may even offer a prize to the most accurate amongst ye.
Click here to see the bracket
By Mogget
An atheist who sued a small-town priest for saying that Jesus Christ existed has had his case thrown out of court. The judge said Luigi Cascioli should himself face charges for slandering Father Enrico Righi.
Read more »
By John C.
RoastedTomatoes recent post on Times and Seasons (look here) reminds me of a point that I have been making in my class, but which I am not sure results in actual doctrine. As always, when faced with the possibility of having taught false doctrine in my class, I turn to the faceless opinions of the internet for correction.
RT cites Alma 32:13-16 wherein a dichotomy is established between those who are compelled to be humble and those who humble themselves. I have a notion that God is primarily speaking rhetorically when he brings up the second group.
I don’t believe that humans are particularly good at humbling themselves. I do believe that this is why we have such things as sin, poverty, cancer, paper cuts, etc. Although some acts may constitute a minor humbling of oneself (baptism comes to mind), I don’t know that humanity (as presently constituted) is actually capable of it. While it is the sort of thing that is possible on paper (or, in the case of Christ, in reality), it doesn’t work out in the vast majority of our real lives.
Things that are truly humbling in the sense that they cause us to turn to God are humiliating. Serious degenerative disease that causes a person to rely on others for bathing or the removal of bodily waste. The impotence of parents when they are unable to protect their children. The shame of being caught by loved ones or civil authorities in the midst of an addiction. These are the sorts of things that really put someone in a crisis of faith.
People who believe that they humbled themselves by accepting a church calling believed beneath them or by accepting a deserved scolding are, to my mind, simply puffing up their pride. There is the oft repeated joke in church wherein someone proclaims their own humility. There are people who wear their “humility” on their sleeve, demanding our appreciation of their meekness.
God demands that we be humble. In the comments to RT’s post, someone pointed out Ether 12:27 which we frequently read for the end, while forgetting the beginning. We are weak because God needs us to be humble. If we are humble, God will make us strong. But he won’t make us proud. Only we do that.
By John C.
Last week, blogpoll went nuts and I made a mistake which meant that the people say that a member of the Presidency of the Seventy has more impact on the church than the general Relief Society President than the general Sunday School President.
In a further effort to fill out my flow-shart of popular understanding of church hierarchy, we have the following:
Which priesthood body has a greater impact on my church experience: the Presiding Bishopric or the Presidency of the Seventy?
The Presiding Bishopric is the governing body of the Aaronic Priesthood (but are overseen by the Quorum of the Twelve and God). They are primarily concerned with overseeing the physical and financial needs of the church.
The Presidency of the Seventy is concerned with overseeing the growth and maintenance of the worldwide church in a more ecclesiastical sense (but are overseen by the Quorum of the Twelve and God). I believe that they also preside over the other seventies in the same limited sense.
Please click on the link below to vote and comment below. I will post daily results and try to figure out how to do screen captures so you can see the final results yourself.
Click here to take survey
By Mogget
Suppose you’re traveling to work and you see a stop sign. What do you do? That depends on how you exegete (interpret) the stop sign.
Read more »
By Mogget
No story in the OT is ever wasted, and the story of Cain and his descendants is no exception. Like the narratives preceding it, it continues to explain the “how” and the “why” of human existence – it has an etiological function. More importantly, however, it also furthers the theological motives of its author.
Read more »
