I explained the content behind the phrase “falsifying the scriptures,” but you needn’t accept my definition, neither must you concede my position.

I’m not so much interested in debating, believe it or not, as socializing and observing. Unfortunately, socializing in this context takes the form of debating. Or back-slapping. Or something.

And, no, I’m not on any crusade. I am enjoying my present state of mind, and, since the R. Gary thread seemed on point, I thought I’d participate a bit. Mostly, I’m content to observe.

Ahh, we shall see whose hypothesis about the relationship between hypo-literalism and faith in the brethren bears fruit. Certainly, let me not be understood to be saying there’s a necessary relationship, just as evolutionary theory, properly understood, does not necessarily lead to more Jeffery Dahmers, even if it did lead to one.

And with that, lurk mode on!

Thank you for your conciliatory words in #66.

As for your comment in #67 I disagree with your basic premise there. First your term “falsifying the scriptures” seems like gibberish to me. A person believing certain scritural stories are historical or allegorical does nothing to make scriptures false or true. Scriptures are either inspired by God or they are not and the cannot be “falsified” by people.

Claiming that anything but hyper-literalism is somehow “falsifying” scriptures is simply begging the question at hand and thus adds nothing to this conversation.

Further, it seems to me that if God wants another Great Apostasy he will get his wish. If God wants the church never apostatize again he’ll get that wish too. (Not that I’m a fatalist — I just think God is actively involved in guiding the fate of His restored church.) It seems to me that if you see yourself on a crusade to end hypo-literalism among the saints in order to protect the church from some next Great Apostasy you are mostly overstepping your authority and steadying the ark.

But more likely you are doing what I’m doing — just engaging in an interesting debate on an interesting subject. Since I am pretty sure that is really what you are doing I thank yo for the enjoyable debate. Also thanks again for coining “hypo-literalism”. I wish I had thought of it but I will definitely use it going forward.

Next, I suspect when all is revealed we will be surprised at how much of the science the children of God have uncovered here on earth is utilized by God. But we shall see.

Finally, no I don’t think hypo-literalism leads one to trust in the brethren less when it comes to the spiritual counsel they give.

Geoff J,

The ancient Christians had the priesthood too; if I recall my Nibley correctly, there were faithful Saints up till around the time of Nicea. I can’t locate my source just now.

The parallel is that some of the Saints, both ancient and modern, engage in the practice of falsifying the scriptures – call it deliteralizing, allegorizing, or spiritualizing, if you like – in response to confrontations with the dominant philosophy of their age. This process has as its intent the rendering of the scriptures conformant to the reigning philosophy.

The process of falsifying the scriptures seems to have the effect of weakening faith in the Brethren, and certain members use the rift in the relationships as well as the appeal of the denatured scriptures in contrast to the unyielding, narrow, uncompassionate, crass literalism of the Brethren to pressure the Brethren to allow things into the church which should not be there – anciently, perhaps belief in an embodied God had to go, while icons and Platonism were introduced; today, perhaps the goals are homogamy, naturalism, and women in the priesthood.

After all, falsifying the scriptures is but one step removed from falsifying the Brethren, for what are scriptures but the fossilized words of the Brethren, hopefully spoken as moved upon by the Holy Spirit – if the fossilized Brethren can be falsified, why not the current Brethren?

It appears we are simply doing that which has been done in other words by mingling the philosophies of men with scripture.

Understand, I’m looking at the “big picture,” not accusing you of apostasy.

When I speak of “faith in” the Brethren, I mean such things as “trust in,” “good will towards,” “loyalty to,” “unity with,” and the like – mostly “trust in.”

This exchange has proven extremely fruitful for me.

Not only do I not think you apostate, I’m willing to concede you have only the best of intentions.

I think – correct me if I am wrong – you perceive what you’re doing as defending the Church by strengthening her doctrines to withstand this confrontation with naturalism in which we are currently engaged and which you feel the Church must lose if her doctrines are taken entirely literally.

I get it – all of it.

Anyways, you never really appropriately responded to my theophany question, but I’ll give you my personal answer – what we see shall be consistent with the prophets, and it won’t be the evolutionary version. The reason the prophets give a consistent picture is because that’s the way it happened. But you needn’t believe that.

Peace!

I’ll play along on your apostasy parallel thing. The comparison doesn’t hold because the priesthood is still here in the church and I still hold and exercise it. So what exactly do you think the parallel is? Are you saying the entire restored church is in some grave danger because not all of us think God made a literal bet with Satan about Job?

Second, if you don’t mean infallibility of the brethren what do you mean precisely when you ask about “faith in the brethren”?

The question was, and still is, a good-faith question.

I could hardly classify you as an apostate simply because you don’t believe what I believe. I was like you, once. Everyone’s got their own cross to bear.

However, as the past is prologue, I would like to hear why you think you’re doing something different than what the primitive Christians did – because, and, no, this is not an accusation of personal apostasy – it looks to me like the parallel is precise.

Well it is certainly fair to say that a rejection of the infallibility doctrine is part of hypo-literalism. I would hope that all of the saints would reject the false notion of infallible leaders though.

You cannot be seriously claiming to believe I was speaking of “belief in the infallibility of the brethren” when I spoke of “faith in the brethren” as a potentially predictable casualty of hypo-literalism.

I know you’re too intelligent for that.

Well your question in #57 was never a good faith question to begin with. It was really an accusation of apostasy. So I responded to what it really was, not what you were pretending it was.

The Gospel envelopes all truth. That includes all scientific truths. I try to believe only true things.

Is it fair to say faith in the brethren is a predictable casualty of hypo-literalism?

Well it is certainly fair to say that a rejection of the infallibility doctrine is part of hypo-literalism. I would hope that all of the saints would reject the false notion of infallible leaders though.

Not only do you not answer my question, which is straightforward, but you imply that it is a problem for me that one need not be a hyper-literalist to be on the path to exaltation.

Care to explain, and, please, be detailed, why this is a problem for me? Because, before you said that, I had no idea I had any such problem.

What makes what you’re doing so different from what they did?

Ah yes — this is a fine example of a hyper-literalist on his church-cleansing jihad. Basically you are saying “You’re an apostate if you don’t believe Lot’s wife was literally turned into a giant salt lick”.

The problem for you is one need not be a hyper-literalist to be on the path to exaltation.