Sign in to follow this  
Justice

Literal or Allegorical

Recommended Posts

Having watched these discussions about the literal/allegorical interpretation of scripture, the real dividing line I notice isn't those who believe that all of the scriptural events are(n't) literal- it's the accompanying spirit.

There can be an adherence to hyper-intellectualism that leads to doubt, a trusting in the 'arm of flesh' over the power of God. Conversely, there can be an anti-intellectualism that leads to blind obedience to feel-good doctrine (such as universal salvation). And on the flip side, there can be a devotion to intellectual pursuits that leads to a bolstered faith in God; or a strong devotion to the scriptures and the prophets that also leads to the same end.

The members in the first group (hyper- and anti-intellectualism) seem to be barred from receiving greater knowledge from the Lord, and denied the sweet blessings such knowledge brings. Conversely, the second group seems to be allowed to know the greater mysteries of the kingdom- even those who aren't as intellectually gifted as their peers.

This observation reminds me that it is first and foremost our devotion to the living God that should occupy our thoughts in these discussions (even if said devotion is never actually talked about). What pains me most is to see the spiritual distress brought by contention over this and similar subjects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having watched these discussions about the literal/allegorical interpretation of scripture, the real dividing line I notice isn't those who believe that all of the scriptural events are(n't) literal- it's the accompanying spirit.

There can be an adherence to hyper-intellectualism that leads to doubt, a trusting in the 'arm of flesh' over the power of God. Conversely, there can be an anti-intellectualism that leads to blind obedience to feel-good doctrine (such as universal salvation). And on the flip side, there can be a devotion to intellectual pursuits that leads to a bolstered faith in God; or a strong devotion to the scriptures and the prophets that also leads to the same end.

The members in the first group (hyper- and anti-intellectualism) seem to be barred from receiving greater knowledge from the Lord, and denied the sweet blessings such knowledge brings. Conversely, the second group seems to be allowed to know the greater mysteries of the kingdom- even those who aren't as intellectually gifted as their peers.

This observation reminds me that it is first and foremost our devotion to the living God that should occupy our thoughts in these discussions (even if said devotion is never actually talked about). What pains me most is to see the spiritual distress brought by contention over this and similar subjects.

That's a bunch of nonsense, and arrogant to boot.

I know from your previous posts that when you say "hyper-intellectualism" you mean ME and those who post like me. Your point - that those, such as I, are "barred" from receiving greater knowledge from God and "denied" blessings, while those, such as you, are given to know greater mysteries, is not only false, but feebleminded.

Though it hardly needs pointing out, the absurdity of your post warrants exposure...

What proof, exactly, do you have that you and your types, receive greater light and knowledge?

Answer: none - you just made it up.

What proof, exactly, do you have that you and your types, receive more "sweet blessings?"

Answer: none - you just made it up.

What proof, exactly, do you have that "intellectuals," whatever that means, are less attuned to the spirit than those with more humble intellects?

Answer: none - you just made it up.

In short, you post is nothing but a sham, an attempted slight, with no basis is reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snow, does a danger exist in missing the spiritual essence of the now by analyzing it?

:)

Perhaps - if you believe that you were not endowed by your creator with your intelligence.

I, on the other hand, believe that God endowed us all with our intelligence and requires us to use it in studying and contemplating the gospel and that when we do apply it, sincerely, and with faith, God reveals himself and his intents to us. Spirituality does not oppose intelligence. They work together.

I don't believe what I believe because I ignore the spirit of personal revelation. I believe what I do because of of it.... and I'd like to see anyone demonstrate, non-dogmatically, otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, on the other hand, believe that God endowed us all with our intelligence and requires us to use it in studying and contemplating the gospel and that when we do apply it, sincerely, and with faith, God reveals himself and his intents to us. Spirituality does not oppose intelligence. They work together.

I don't believe what I believe because I ignore the spirit of personal revelation. I believe what I do because of of it.... and I'd like to see anyone demonstrate, non-dogmatically, otherwise.

So the endpoint of this spirituality is something that makes sense, rather than being a quixotic point of dogma?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the endpoint of this spirituality is something that makes sense, rather than being a quixotic point of dogma?

I've never denied the value of spirituality, in fact I have weighed in positively on the matter. I simply deny that the unsophisticates have a point when they argue, essentially: when God answers my prayers, He answers my prayers but when He answers your prayers, your wrong. That's dogmatic and it is a colossal waste of time to resort to dogma to make points in a discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: After a few hours of reflection, I've determined that my initial rebuttal to Snow was too personal. I regret the venue in which I expressed my anger and frustration- it's best not done on a public forum, or not done at all.

Edited by Maxel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a bunch of nonsense, and arrogant to boot.

I know from your previous posts that when you say "hyper-intellectualism" you mean ME and those who post like me. Your point - that those, such as I, are "barred" from receiving greater knowledge from God and "denied" blessings, while those, such as you, are given to know greater mysteries, is not only false, but feebleminded.

...

Snow, maybe it's just me, but i THINK your misreading Maxel's post. I think you're personalizing the message a bit too much.

I would characterize the target of hyper-intellectuals not as yourself, but as people like Richard Dawkins or Dan Dennett.

And pardon me for issuing a bit of advice, but...

Asking for proof and saying "you made it up" is not a good idea, Snow.

Everything I think is "made up", and it's just the same for you. Just because Maxel states an opinion, is no reason for you to demand 'proof'. Your version of 'making it up' is nothing more than legitmate expression of thought.

Take it easy, I really don't think Maxel was attacking you.

HiJolly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the result of months of watching and discussion, Snow. ...

Ok, *NOW* Maxel is attacking you.

As a poor man once said, "Can't we all just get along?"

HiJolly

Edited by HiJolly
deleting Maxel's comments by my own initiative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get concerned at the increasingly frequent appeals to unusual spiritual experiences that some people habitually engage in out here in such a public venue. They seem to be using these "experiences" for the purpose of counseling or correcting others, or simply for the purpose of gaining recognition or honors for being so spiritual that God has revealed things to themselves that others are nor privileged to behold. If you are not careful, you may be defiling the sacredness of any unusual experiences God has allowed you to behold. Consider this counsel from President Boyd K. Packer (of the Twelve):

"I have learned that strong, impressive spiritual experiences do not come to us very frequently. And when they do, they are generally for our own edification, instruction, or correction. Unless we are called by proper authority to do so, they do not position us to counsel or to correct others.

I have come to believe also that it is not wise to continually talk of unusual spiritual experiences. They are to be guarded with care and shared only when the Spirit itself prompts you to use them to the blessing of others." (Ensign, Jan. 1983, 53)

Just something to think about for all of us. Keep your sacred spiritual experiences "sacred".

Also, we want to be careful not to engage in priestcraft. When we preach and set ourselves up for a light unto the world, so that we may get gain, or in this case the praise of the world, because of our great revelations that go beyond what the prophets have given to the Church, we are not seeking the welfare of Zion, but are toying with priestcraft (2 Ne. 26:29). IMHO of course. :)

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited by Vanhin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snow, maybe it's just me, but i THINK your misreading Maxel's post. I think you're personalizing the message a bit too much.

I would characterize the target of hyper-intellectuals not as yourself, but as people like Richard Dawkins or Dan Dennett.

And pardon me for issuing a bit of advice, but...

Asking for proof and saying "you made it up" is not a good idea, Snow.

Everything I think is "made up", and it's just the same for you. Just because Maxel states an opinion, is no reason for you to demand 'proof'. Your version of 'making it up' is nothing more than legitmate expression of thought.

Take it easy, I really don't think Maxel was attacking you.

HiJolly

Oh - he was (speaking of me in particular). I know because it is simply a continuation and reiteration of what he was said, specifically, a number of times before.

When he (anyone really) states his opinion as if it is fact, I will certainly challenge him (them) to produce the requisite evidence and when there is no evidence I do not mind saying that it (factual pretension) is made up.

As for taking it easy - of course. I am not emotionally invested and I think he is probably a lovely fellow in real life. I'm just blunt. Of course, if I am wrong, and he , or anyone, shows that I am mistaken, I'll cheerfully apologize and correct the record.

Edited by Snow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh - he was (speaking of me in particular). I know because it is simply a continuation and reiteration of what he was said, specifically, a number of times before.

When he (anyone really) states his opinion as if it is fact, I will certainly challenge him (them) to produce the requisite evidence and when there is no evidence I do not mind saying that it (factual pretension) is made up.

As for taking it easy - of course. I am not emotionally invested and I think he is probably a lovely fellow in real life. I'm just blunt. Of course, if I am wrong, and he , or anyone, shows that I am mistaken, I'll cheerfully apologize and correct the record.

Yes, I was clearly off the mark on that one.

I don't think that "requisite evidence" is required on this board. It's not like the MA&DB. If you demand it, then I can see why Maxel gets a bit angry.

It's negative hyperbole to say that something not in evidence is "made up", though. The subjective is real, even when we cannot perceive it. To discount it simply because it is not our subjective experience or view, is denigrating to whomever offered it in the first place.

Would you actually say that my love for my wife is "made up"? I hope not.

Of course, that's just my subjective view on it, so you can continue on your course unaffected, if that is your desire.

HiJolly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I was clearly off the mark on that one.

I don't think that "requisite evidence" is required on this board. It's not like the MA&DB. If you demand it, then I can see why Maxel gets a bit angry.

It's negative hyperbole to say that something not in evidence is "made up", though. The subjective is real, even when we cannot perceive it. To discount it simply because it is not our subjective experience or view, is denigrating to whomever offered it in the first place.

Would you actually say that my love for my wife is "made up"? I hope not.

Of course, that's just my subjective view on it, so you can continue on your course unaffected, if that is your desire.

HiJolly

"Requisite" in the sense that he who makes the claim bears the burden of proof.

"Made up" in the sense that it is false, put forward as a polemical device, and unsupportable with "requisite" evidence.

Your "supposed" :) love for your wife is another matter entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Requisite" in the sense that he who makes the claim bears the burden of proof.

"Made up" in the sense that it is false, put forward as a polemical device, and unsupportable with "requisite" evidence.

Your "supposed" :) love for your wife is another matter entirely.

Snow, i recommend that you change your name to 'ICE'.

If you put this in context, you are the one making other's statements 'polemical'. This board was not intended to be polemical. Go to MA&DB for that.

HiJolly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snow, i recommend that you change your name to 'ICE'.

If you put this in context, you are the one making other's statements 'polemical'. This board was not intended to be polemical. Go to MA&DB for that.

HiJolly

That just doesn't make sense.

The poster made polemical claims about who received inspiration and who didn't before I even addressed him.

This board has, at any one time, one or two dozen polemical threads running. You yourself are engaged in some of them. Why are you telling me to post elsewhere when you do what you apparently think I should not be doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That just doesn't make sense.

The poster made polemical claims about who received inspiration and who didn't before I even addressed him.

The reason it doesn't make sense is because you think the poster in question made polemical claims, when he didn't. He was posting his opinion, his views, his ideas. You know, conversationally. This here board is a 'discussion' board, as I said. Soon as he proffers an idea, you jump all over him because you want evidence. Fooey on you. He has no obligation to scratch your itch.

Most of us here really don't want controversy, we want companionable conversation. If you want controvery, I know where you can find it.

He can spout ideas and thoughts and 'claims' all day, and that's ok with everyone except, presumably, you. Why is that? We're having a discussion, not a debate, not an arguement. Or we were until you jumped in.

This board has, at any one time, one or two dozen polemical threads running. You yourself are engaged in some of them. Why are you telling me to post elsewhere when you do what you apparently think I should not be doing?

It has to do with a fine line between controversy (perhaps confrontation is the word) and conversation. And you, Snow are one that usually crosses that line. Yes, it's a subjective line, but if you think the majority agrees with your view, I'd recommend you start a survey. I think you'll be surprised.

You see, you're doing it now with me.

HiJolly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason it doesn't make sense is because you think the poster in question made polemical claims, when he didn't. He was posting his opinion, his views, his ideas. You know, conversationally. This here board is a 'discussion' board, as I said. Soon as he proffers an idea, you jump all over him because you want evidence. Fooey on you. He has no obligation to scratch your itch.

Most of us here really don't want controversy, we want companionable conversation. If you want controvery, I know where you can find it.

He can spout ideas and thoughts and 'claims' all day, and that's ok with everyone except, presumably, you. Why is that? We're having a discussion, not a debate, not an arguement. Or we were until you jumped in.

You just don't know what you are talking about.

I didn't jump all over him because I want evidence (as you absurdly claim). I responded because he said that he and his ilk are blessed with sweet divine knowledge and that me and mine are barred from it.

Follow the thread for Pete's sake if you are going try and explain it. He said, specifically:

"There can be an adherence to hyper-intellectualism that leads to doubt, a trusting in the 'arm of flesh' over the power of God. Conversely, there can be an anti-intellectualism that leads to blind obedience to feel-good doctrine (such as universal salvation). And on the flip side, there can be a devotion to intellectual pursuits that leads to a bolstered faith in God; or a strong devotion to the scriptures and the prophets that also leads to the same end.

The members in the first group (hyper- and anti-intellectualism) seem to be barred from receiving greater knowledge from the Lord, and denied the sweet blessings such knowledge brings. Conversely, the second group seems to be allowed to know the greater mysteries of the kingdom- even those who aren't as intellectually gifted as their peers."

It has to do with a fine line between controversy (perhaps confrontation is the word) and conversation. And you, Snow are one that usually crosses that line. Yes, it's a subjective line, but if you think the majority agrees with your view, I'd recommend you start a survey. I think you'll be surprised.

You see, you're doing it now with me.

HiJolly

Here's the difference between you and me. I don't pretend that I am virtuous if I am not. I don't act the victim when I am the initiator. Both he and YOU took up with me. I hadn't said one word in this thread to either of you until you complained about me and now you have the gall to carp about my nastiness. I may be a good number of things but I am not a hypocrite. Go cavil about someone else.

Edited by Snow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's get this thread back on topic. No more polemics, please. Everyone talk nicely, regardless of whether the other person appropriately answers your questions or not. Tact, patience, and kindness will go further to bring people to Christ than animosity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this