[Mormonguy]

Hey On own Now…

Thanks for the advice. I have to admit, you’re right about not letting it drive me crazy. I can make a choice to see it differently. I guess it’s beginning to drive me less crazy because I’ve gotten mostly used to the “formulaic” testimony endings and now mostly tune them out when someone is coming to the end of his/her testimony since they all tend to end the same way.

And yes, in my life too, there was a time when I would have said, “I know”….

[Mormonguy]

wayfarer wrote:

that is a wonderfully jewish apologetic answer. El was a name of god, and the plural is indicated in more ways than just the term “elohim”. out of respect for rabbinical jewish tradition, i recognize that THEY consider elohim singular, but if joseph, as a prophet, found rabbinical traditions to be apostate, as did jesus, then there should be nothing wrong with thinking of elohim as plural.

Wayfarer:

I think the confusion comes in when we realize that Elohim is used in different senses when referring to different deities. Elohim IS a plural inherently because of the “im” ending. And, when it was used by the Jews in reference to any God but YHWH in the Hebrew tradition, it was allowed to take its normal, plural meaning, such as when it referred to the “gods of the nations” (elohim ha goyim). However, in reference to YHWH, the plural ending was taken to mean a plural of majesty, not number.

So, if one like JS or me or you is “translating” an ancient Hebrew text, and the text uses elohim in reference to the God of Israel, we as translators are OBLIGATED to translate the text as God, not Gods, because the ancient Hebrew writer would not have meant “gods” when he wrote it. Since the BoA claims to be a translation, JS would be unjustified in translating elohim in any other way than “god” when the text referred to the God of Israel.

If he were doing some kind of midrash, as I suggested — and not actually translating anything — then he could say “gods” if he wanted to because midrash includes commentary and interpretation. I don’t think that even a prophet can call a tradition of language interpretation apostate. And even so, one thing I appreciate about the LDS tradition is that we don’t believe in the infallibility of our prophets. So even if JS as a prophet called a tradition of language interpretation apostate, I think he would be wrong.

[Mormonguy]

Hawkgrrrl:

Those are great distinctions I think we should all keep in mind.

I would go even farther with the doctrine though. I would say we really CAN’T “know” if the teaching (doctrine) is true. We can’t verify the existence of the pre-mortal life for example. We can only “believe” it to be true. That’s why statements like “I KNOW the Church is true” drive me crazy. Knowledge, in the classic sense, is verifiable and accessible to all. So, the statement “I BELIEVE the Church is true” works better than “I KNOW”, but “I BELIEVE” will get you called into the Bishop’s office

Thanks for your valuable input!

[Mormonguy]

Thoreau wrote:

You’re saying Elohim is not plural?

Now I’m more confused. I’ve been taught (LDS) that Elohim was Heavenly Father and (non-LDS) that Elohim was a plural noun.

Thoreau:

Sorry for the confusion.

“Elohim” is a plural of majesty in Hebrew, not a plural of number.

If it were a plural of number, like JS thought is was, we would properly translate El or Eloah as “God” and EloHIM as “Gods”.

However, Elohim is a plural of majesty. Plural of majesty is a literary device where a single person is meant, but that person is spoken of in the plural to denote greatness or importance. So, when the Queen of England says: “We are not amused”, she means “I am not amused”, but refers to herself as “we” to denote that she is great or important.

The writers of the OT referred to God in the plural of majesty — EloHIM to denote importance or greatness. However, Elohim is actually singular and should ALWAYS be translated in the SINGULAR “God”, NEVER the plural “Gods”.

So, when JS “translates” Elohim in the BoA as “Gods” he shows his ignorance of Hebrew language and practice.

[Mormonguy]

Orson:

I agree that we use “true” in different senses and it is also correct that the way most (many?) people in the Church use “true”, they mean “propositionally true”. I tend to take it generally to mean as you appear to: true FOR ME, given my circumstances. However, I don’t think we can totally discount the importance of “true” in the propositional sense.

If the Church is “true” in that sense, it simply would mean that the teachings of the Church “correspond with reality” — they reflect the correct idea of the way the world really works. When we’re discussing eternity (as we always do in religious matters explicitly or not) it would be extremely helpful if we’re discussing something “true” in that sense. Who wants to go into eternity believing something “false”? That could be dangerous (hell).

For me, at this point in my life, I really don’t believe that there is anything beyond death, so it doesn’t matter if the Church is “true” in that sense. For many, that is ALL that would matter, and I respect that without endorsing that version of “true”.

[Mormonguy]

AngryMormon wrote:

Do whatever makes you happy! Best of luck.

Thanks! I will.

Once the FP gives its Holy Okey Dokey, I think I’ll take a dip

[Mormonguy]

Old-Timer wrote:

or it could be Midrash, technically, even if Joseph thought he was translating scripture from papyrus.

That sounds like a stretch to us with our analytical mindsets, at first blush, I know, but what if Joseph wasn’t versed in midrash, didn’t know the difference between “scripture” and “midrash” and, therefore, wrote midrash while thinking he was translating scripture – since midrash was all he knew with regard to his own work? It isn’t a stretch at all to believe he did what ancient prophet-writers did but, not understanding it, thought what he was producing was traditional scripture. All that means is that he didn’t understand his own mission perfectly, and can accept that without any hesitation or lower respect for him or what he produced.

I personally believe in the midrash explanation – and I don’t think it lessens either the BofA or the BofM in any way. I don’t take any scripture as the literal, inerrant, pure word of God, so, in practical terms, I see it all as midrash-ish, if you will.

Ray, I’m sure that JS wasn’t versed in midrash, since if I recall the timeline that Wayfarer posted earlier in this topic, he didn’t begin learning Hebrew until after about 1835, which I think is after his encounter with the mummies in Kirtland. And due to his dogged insistence that Elohim is plural, I think it shows that JS was willing to bend what he did know to his own liking. So I think it’s possible as you say that JS didn’t understand quite what he was doing and ended up using the papyri to produce a midrash that he THOUGHT was a “translation”.

I DO agree with Wayfarer though that IF one takes scripture literally, that WOULD pose a problem for the midrash explanation.

[Mormonguy]

wayfarer wrote:

it is clear that in the book of Moses, being part of the ‘inspired version’ exercise, Joseph is doing a sort of Midrash. The problem with the BoA is that it claims a a source the papyri, written by abraham’s own hand. This is clearly false: it was not, and the egyptology, along with the interpretation of “Elohim” was all wrong.

Wayfarer…Yes, you are certainly right about the false egyptology and the interpretation of Elohim. However, while the BoMo does in some ways read like Midrash, I believe that it can’t really be considered midrash precisely because it doesn’t have a “source”. Midrash has to have a source to work from, and the BoMo has no claimed source.

wayfarer wrote:

Mormons expect prophetic and scriptural perfection, and BoA doesnt deliver it–and that is a serious problem.

I agree. But if we “downgraded” our claim for the BOA from “scripture” to midrash, I think that would “solve” the problem of the BOA. Of course, I doubt the Church would ever do that, since it would put everything else in question.

wayfarer wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but midrash never claimed to be “scripture” on the same level as the Tanakh. In this respect, the BoA must be evaluated as scripture and not midrash, because it claims to be such. The Book of Moses makes no such claim, so it fits midrash better.

I see your point, and you are certainly correct that midrash never claimed to be scripture. And as an Orthodox rabbi once told me, “If you put 4 rabbis in a room, you’ll get 5 opinions”. If either the BOA or the BoMo were midrash, however, that would tend to solve the problem of “inspired” or “made up” that started my comments on this thread. Midrash, in my understanding, while not on the level of scripture, could be BOTH inspired AND made up (in the sense of “commentary”) and still be valuable.

[Mormonguy]

Thanks Ray!

That’s really helpful.

So far, I’ve gotten a lot of great advice here. :thumbup:

[Mormonguy]

On Own Now wrote:

Well, number one was to be honest with my family, close friends, Bishop, and EQP.

Wow! Congrats on that. I think if I told my Bishop what I really believe, he would never allow me to join the Church. Maybe the experience is different once you’re already “in”? Do you feel you have a “progressive” Bishop or EQP?

On Own Now wrote:

I don’t give my testimony, pray, expound on doctrinal questions in class. I stay out of their way and let them worship according to their belief and I do everything I can not to be disruptive, disrespectful, or contrary.

I can see how one can avoid the testimony or expounding on doctrine, but how do you avoid being called on for prayer? And what do you say if they DO call on you?

On Own Now wrote:

If the guy next to me believes that Noah really built a boat and had two of every kind of animal, including all 62 species of deer and 91 of antelope, then fine. I could let my blood pressure rise, as I once did, but at this point, it doesn’t matter. Quite the opposite, I applaud him for believing in something greater, and I am, in a sense, jealous that he can. So, I celebrate the spirituality in others, rather than analyzing, characterizing, and fretting over it. I don’t think of myself as smarter or more evolved, and I don’t think of him as simple-minded, delusional, or duped. We just have different things we believe, and I’m at peace with that.

I agree TOTALLY! I just hope the rest of the ward is ok with it in reverse, in my case

[Mormonguy]

mackay11 wrote:

Inspired or made up. In the end it’s a faith choice.

Or maybe there’s a middle way. I’m new to the Church, but my degrees are in theology and philosophy, so maybe I can offer a stab at a solution, or at least stir the pot.

What if the BOA is midrash? Given my background, I get the very strong impression that the BOA IS midrash as I read it.

Midrash is a specific kind of literature almost exclusive to Judaism that can be most easily described as a cross between a commentary on and an interpretation of a text or texts in the OT.

As I read the BOA, it seems to me to be a midrash on the first couple of chapters of Genesis. If it IS “midrash”, it’s a very amateurish midrash, given that JS obviously thought the Hebrew “elohim” was plural, which it isn’t. Nevertheless, the BOA reads like midrash to me, and if so, the fact that it may cross the line between “inspired” or “made up” is really moot, since midrash does that anyway by being a cross between commentary and interpretation.

I would really like more input on the whole “midrash” thing if anybody has any insights…or maybe some articles on the subject….???

[Mormonguy]

Janes now wrote:

You are not crazy! I’m having a faith crisis and I just moved to a new city. My shelf fell about 3 months after I moved here. At this point, my ” friends” in this unfamiliar place are the members of the church. They have really helped me out, gave me some good advices around here for a newcomer and made me feel like Im not as alone as I would have been without them. That is the good of the church. I still need to figure out what I believe though. I don’t think it is a bad thing to want to be a part of something good.

Thanks Jane! Although I’ve been in my current city for about 5 years, I’ve been pretty much a loner, except for my friends at the LDS church, and those were only made recently. So I too am very grateful for the friendships I’ve made there. And I too need to figure out what I believe…if that ever happens again. Maybe it’s a sad commentary on my social skills, but it seems that the only place I know I fit and where I know how to make friends is at church — because of being former clergy. The LDS Church “fits” in that regard…and in that respect, I haven’t found a more welcoming group of people anywhere….Even if you DO come to church for over a month wearing a colored polo shirt!

[Mormonguy]

Roy wrote:

I remember visiting my parents’ ward where I grew up. An old friend was recently married to a young woman that was from a country in the old soviet bloc. She had been baptized and was asked to tell her conversion story in sacrament meeting. She described it as somewhat of an ultimatum. My friend loved her but would only marry her if she converted. Although the primary motivation was love, this would also be a path to citizenship and she could stay in the US. She called her mom (back in the home country) for advice and her mom told her to go ahead – that one church is largely as good as another.

I was thoroughly amused by her candor and wondered if the bishopric knew what they were getting into when they asked her to share her conversion story.

Roy…

Thanks for the references to the talk and interview.

I wonder how this lady got past the “yes” or “no” missionary questions on the baptismal interview?

[Mormonguy]

church0333 wrote:

We have an older woman in our ward who was a ordained pastor in a different church for 40 years. I don’t think she believe all we teach (but who really believes in it all) but she has found being with the LDS people has given her something she was missing from her old church and she comes every week. I don’t have a testimony like I use to but I enjoy and appreciate what the church has to offer and the service it allows me to give. I think if you go in realizing up front that you are joining a flawed church with flawed members and leaders then it will be easier then if you joined thinking all is perfect and then being disappointed when finding out that it is not. It sounds like you it might be just what you need for now and now is all we really have.

Thanks Church…

I really wish there was an “association” of some sort for members of the Church who are former clergy. I’ll bet we’d have great discussions….

And I do know the church and it’s people are flawed…I’m flawed too. Someone once said…”If you find the perfect Church, don’t join it — you’ll screw it up”.

[Mormonguy]

On Own Now wrote:

I am an atheist, and I continue to go to Church, and I feel like I’ve gotten past the mental gymnastics that come with being a non-believer attending church. But in your case, you need to watch out that you don’t inadvertently become a minor celebrity and proof that the Church is true because of the fact that you are a former minister/clergy.

On Own Now: Thanks for sharing this. I really appreciate it. How did you get past the mental gymnastics? And I already AM (unfortunately) a minor celebrity. People have continued to ask “when are you finally going to get baptized” so much that the Bishop had to tell the ward council, “He’s former clergy…it requires the permission of the FP”. Tell the ward council, tell the ward.

On Own Now wrote:

My most uncomfortable times at church are not about the BofM, or about belief conflicts, but about not wanting to be hypocritical. Don’t take this as a suggestion, just a thought, but in your case, you might give some consideration to being a little more up-front about wanting to join the congregation as a seeker of good and of God, but that you have more hope than belief… again, just so you don’t come across as a faith-promoting conversion story.

I have a problem with the “hypocritical” thing too, but I’m not sure I believe there is a god out there to judge me for it in the ultimate sense, so I tend to ignore those feelings and just try to enjoy the people and the good things my association brings with the Church. As for being upfront about joining as a seeker….I think the baptism interview prevents that doesn’t it? I mean, it flat out asks “do you believe….” and has to be answered with a “yes” or “no”. At least that’s the feeling I get from the missionaries, who of course are literalists when it comes to just about everything….

On Own Now wrote:

So, I’m careful not to categorize people based on levels of agreement with my own beliefs. To me, the bad people are something else entirely. So, when I hear things that others believe that I don’t, I don’t get too worked up. I think part of being a reluctant member of the Church is that I’m a little more open to competing beliefs, and that has to include not only beliefs outside, but also inside the Church.

So far, I haven’t encountered any “bad” people at all. I hope my comment about TBM’s wasn’t interpreted as labeling them as bad people. In fact, most of my ward are TBM’s, I think. For me, TBM stands for True Blue Mormon, and describes one who believes everything literally. Literal belief certainly isn’t bad — it’s just not sustainable over the long haul because of the well-known problems with Church history, IMO. In fact, I sometimes ENVY those people, because in my experience, you can only be “true blue” anything until you’ve had a crisis of faith. I envy those who haven’t had such an experience. I would consider them “lucky”…never “bad”

[Author]

Posts