An Interpretive Tradition Rather Than Church “doctrine”

[Elphaba]

I spend a lot of time viewing a number of LDS-related blogs, and last night I found this gem from New Cool Thang, a blog I always enjoy because the discourse is always not quite over my head, but almost, so it's a challenge.

The following is an excerpt from the New Cool Thang's blog thread titled "An Interpretive Tradition Rather than Church “Doctrine”." I really enjoyed the thread because "Blake" expanded on the approach that the scriptures are doctrine, etc., but gave me a different perspective on how to see the scriptures as doctrine.

Blake: What that means is that the scriptures act like a constitution. It can be updated and amended, but it takes a very positive and affirmative act widely recognized by Church members (like the 1978 revelation for instance). The scriptures, like the Constitution, lay down broad and general statements of very foundational principals that control and govern all other possibilities of belief. So the scriptures must be accepted because they are the foundational revelation; however, they do not contain there own self-contained self-interpretation. There are numerous possibilities and the interpretive rules are not themselves authoritative. That is why the prophetic voice is crucial in Mormonism.

It seems to me that what makes a tradition distinctive is the interpretive stance it adopts. Evangelicals adopt a kind of inerrant stance where they suppose that the scriptures are a self-contained systematic authority that provide authoritative and self-consistent interpretive rules for interpretation of the text. So how do we decide what the interpretive rules are? I believe that it is easy to see that the evangelical stance is logically circular, and I believe that it fundamentally and seriously misunderstands the scriptural texts by treating them as a consistent set of belief statement that can be worked into a systematic doctrinal statement that must be believed for salvation. Only the really intelligent and vastly literate can be saved on such a view. Indeed, given all of the different views that intelligent interpreters can adopt based on the scriptural texts, if one must get the doctrine right to be saved, then I don’t believe that it is possible for anyone to be saved at all.

Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy likewise constitute distinctive interpretive traditions. The later writings of the Church Fathers for Eastern Orthodox and the Magisterium for Catholics constitute a crucial context for interpretive authority. The way they approach the texts is within the context of a later tradition that developed. The problem I see here is that there is no reason to give any authority to the later tradition or texts because they eschew revelation on par with scripture as a means of interpreting scripture. Thus, their interpretive context lacks authority — their sole authority is the validity of their reasoning. I find that reasoning seriously suspect and I have no other reason to grant the authority of such a tradition.

It is different in Mormonism where the context is formed by revelation and the ongoing interpretive context is the continuation of the prophetic spirit. There is reason to grant authority beyond a systematic theology because we don’t have the entire revelation and we are guided by an ongoing and living voice rather than being left to our best reasoning to figure out the appropriate interpretation. So we could be given commands or truths that make no sense at present because they await further revelation to put them into a context that makes sense of them. However, there is authority beyond the authority of simply reasoning from what has already been given. So I will give assent to what I take to derive from revelation because it may well be beyond my ken; but I won’t give assent or authority when the sole basis is reason.

Comment by Blake — November 18, 2007

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

New Cool Thang-Scriptures, An Interpretive Tradition

I hope you enjoy this as much as I did.

Elphaba

[pushka]

Ahem, forgive me for asking, but is there an interpreter on the forum who can intepret Blake's post for me, please!? I'm afraid all that repetition of the I word got me confused!! :)

[Elphaba]

Ahem, forgive me for asking, but is there an interpreter on the forum who can intepret Blake's post for me, please!? I'm afraid all that repetition of the I word got me confused!! :)

Hi Pushka,

Basically what he is saying is LDS doctrine is an organic thing as the prophet can interpret it as needed. This is why he uses the U.S. Constitution as an example. The Constitution is also changable as needed to reflect a society that did not exist when originally written. The same as for the scriptures, the difference being, of course, that any changes originate from, or are approved by God.

All other religions see doctrine, i.e., the Bible as inerrant, and never changing, or if they do change it they lack the authority to do so.

That is a poor synopsis, but it is the gist of it.

Perhaps I chose a poor section of the thread. It really was quite interesting.

Elphaba

[Lonasunde]

Thank you Elphaba. I really enjoyed reading that. I personally know that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints Is the only church with authority given to us from God. Heavenly Father literally speaks through our Prophet.

[Old Tex]

Basically what he is saying is LDS doctrine is an organic thing as the prophet can interpret it as needed. This is why he uses the U.S. Constitution as an example. The Constitution is also changable as needed to reflect a society that did not exist when originally written. The same as for the scriptures, the difference being, of course, that any changes originate from, or are approved by God.

All other religions see doctrine, i.e., the Bible as inerrant, and never changing, or if they do change it they lack the authority to do so.

Thanks for your post, Elphaba. I agree that LDS teaching is dynamic, where others are static. And reading some of his other topics is equally thought provoking, such topics that deal with gods, angels, and resurrected humans, in what I would call an eternal Celestial society.

A question.... What's a nice atheist like you doing in a place like this?

[Elphaba]

A question.... What's a nice atheist like you doing in a place like this?

I was born and raised Mormon. All of my family is Mormon. In fact, 99% of the people in my life are LDS.

I have mentioned before that I still love the LDS Church, and it is true. It's just that I do not believe there is a god. So I cann't believe in the divinity of the Church. But my passion is Mormon history, and I continue to be interested in the church's culture.

I also thouroughly enjoy the intellectual discussions about Church doctrine, such as the OP.

Someone once called me a "dry Mormon." I thought that was very funny, and perhaps a bit true. I assure you I am a die-hard atheist, but I am happiest when a Latter-day Saint comprehends that it is possible to love the Church without believing in its divinity, and I have many good friends here who do believe me, and in fact love me anyway.

There are a few who do not understand this, and believe I am in fact hiding my true feelings of denigration for the Church and even for the Christ. To them I say tough. I believe what I say I believe, and if they don't believe me, they get to do that. It changes nothing.

That's not to say there aren't things I wish the Church did differently. However, I am no one to tell the Church what it can or can't do. I can express my opinion, and that is all. And the Latter-day Saints on this board can take it or leave it, and they usually leave it, which is fine with me.

But overall, I feel such an affinity with the Church, I feel very comfortable here.

Elphaba

[Moksha]

I agree that LDS teaching is dynamic, where others are static.

I am uncertain of this. The Catholics have had many changes over the last two millennium. Most recently, Vatican I & II ushered in many changes. The Episcopalians recently had a major change as to who can be Bishops. Ect....

Perhaps we can says that our's is the one true fluidity, but we cannot say we are the only ones who change.

[pushka]

<div class='quotemain'>Ahem, forgive me for asking, but is there an interpreter on the forum who can intepret Blake's post for me, please!? I'm afraid all that repetition of the I word got me confused!! :)

Hi Pushka,

Basically what he is saying is LDS doctrine is an organic thing as the prophet can interpret it as needed. This is why he uses the U.S. Constitution as an example. The Constitution is also changable as needed to reflect a society that did not exist when originally written. The same as for the scriptures, the difference being, of course, that any changes originate from, or are approved by God.

All other religions see doctrine, i.e., the Bible as inerrant, and never changing, or if they do change it they lack the authority to do so.

That is a poor synopsis, but it is the gist of it.

Perhaps I chose a poor section of the thread. It really was quite interesting.

Elphaba

Hi Elphie, thanks for getting back to me on my question...I did assume that the gist of the post was the difference between how the LDS interpret scripture (by use of current revelation to The Prophet), and and other religions interpret it...however I just found his wording a little difficult to fully comprehend...sometimes posts seem to get bogged down in sounding 'intellectual' when the same things could be argued in a much simpler way which lots more people could read and understand.

Don't worry, I'm not really criticising Blake for being too intellectual, or you for choosing that part of his thread to post here, it was just that my mind was a little too muddled to understand his post as I was reading it...although basically thinking I understood the gist of it. Thanks for posting it. :)

[MadHatter]

<div class='quotemain'>

I agree that LDS teaching is dynamic, where others are static.

I am uncertain of this. The Catholics have had many changes over the last two millennium. Most recently, Vatican I & II ushered in many changes. The Episcopalians recently had a major change as to who can be Bishops. Ect....

Perhaps we can says that our's is the one true fluidity, but we cannot say we are the only ones who change.

Teaching structure and approaches may be dynamic, but the actual doctrines and beliefs have never changed, worthiness requirements for missionaries and other priesthood offices have gotten stricter than before.

certain things have changed but our core doctrines and beliefs have never changed, we are not a changing church. we just comprehend more as we go along ans so we seem to believe more things than before but it has actually remained unchanged.

[Elphaba]

Hi Elphie, thanks for getting back to me on my question...I did assume that the gist of the post was the difference between how the LDS interpret scripture (by use of current revelation to The Prophet), and and other religions interpret it...however I just found his wording a little difficult to fully comprehend...sometimes posts seem to get bogged down in sounding 'intellectual' when the same things could be argued in a much simpler way which lots more people could read and understand.

Don't worry, I'm not really criticising Blake for being too intellectual, or you for choosing that part of his thread to post here, it was just that my mind was a little too muddled to understand his post as I was reading it...although basically thinking I understood the gist of it. Thanks for posting it. :)

Hi Pushka,

There is no doubt the paragraphs could have used an editor with a talent for conciseness. They are an example of the manuscripts a certain type of client used to bring me when I had my publishing business, and I dreaded them. These clients were smart enough to write perfeclty readable sentences, but wrote twenty of them for every one that was really needed. Yet, trying to get them to edit out a word, much less a sentence, or horrors, even a whole paragraph, really seemed to traumatize them. Their manuscripts were their baby!

Your point is well taken.

Elphaba

P.S. And if anyone out there is laughing at me because some of my posts are twenty pages long, well, go ahead and laugh. I deserve it. E.