|
Sunday, April 18, 2010 SmallAxe, I'm posting my response this way because HTML support in Blogger comments is so limited. Besides, this is probably too long to be a comment anyway. Your words are in blue, mine are in red. I will start with a couple of earlier comments.
"I have two questions here: 1) Where does your fidelity lie, with the truth or with interpretations of the truth? 2) Why are their interpretations any better than other interpretations?" The best I can come up with is a sort of cosmic version of the story about the blind men and the elephant. The apostles and prophets are mortal men. The "conceptions" or "interpretations" are necessary because no mortal is capable of comprehending the full and complete truth about some things. D&C 101:32-34 names a few such things that will yet be revealed. Until then, "man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend" (Mosiah 4:9). "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isa. 55:9). "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" (Rom. 11:33). "If we take the elephant story seriously, our fidelity is to the elephant and not interpretations of the elephant." Please allow me to use the term "ultimate truth" to describe the truth as God sees it and as man (for reasons explained in the above mentioned verses of scripture) cannot see it. And please allow me to use the term "interpretations" to mean honest and true, even if incomplete, conceptions of ultimate truth, or in other words portions of "ultimate truth" which man can comprehend.
That said, my loyalty is committed to both ultimate truth and authorized mortal interpretations of ultimate truth (the elephant and interpretations of the elephant). I am committed to God's perspective of the elephant which no man can comprehend, and I am equally committed to honest and true, even if incomplete, interpretations of the (to man) incomprehensible elephant. "Since the elephant does not change, a perfect interpretation of the elephant should not change either." I agree. Ultimate truth does not change, but a perfect interpretation of ultimate truth is beyond the ken of the mortal mind. "Since FP/12 interpretations of this particular elephant (nbdf) have changed and are open to change, the most it provides is some kind of speculation on the elephant and I'm not sure how dogmatically we should hold to such speculation." Of the 97 men who have served in the Quorum of the Twelve in this dispensation, we know 16 promoted ndbf, two challenged it, and one was neutral (see the chart below).
Here's what we know about the two who challenged it. Talmage was called as an apostle in 1911, and Widtsoe was called in 1921. Talmage died in 1933, and Widtsoe died in 1952. That means for 41 years one or both challenged ndbf. During the remaining 139 years of Church history, there was no apostolic challenge to ndbf being published and taught by the Church.
Look at the chart below. When you consider that only two of 97 modern apostles have opposed ndbf and not since 58 years ago, it becomes obvious why seminary, institute, other Church published manuals teach ndbf today. For 40 years, ndbf has received repeated approval in one form or another from the First Presidency and the Twelve. I would also note that you can't put the silence of those who've said nothing into the manuals.
So the Church teaches ndbf.
---------------------------------------------------
A P O S T O L I C S U P P O R T O F N D B F
---------------------------------------------------
Color red :promotes ndbf
key blue :challenges ndbf
green :neutral
The numbers on the left are the order in which the 97 apostles
were called, as listed in the Deseret News Almanac.
The numbers on the right are note numbers, described below.
-------------------------------------
7. Parley P. Pratt 1.
10. Orson Pratt 1.
14. John Taylor 1.
15. Wilford Woodruff 1.
33. Heber J. Grant 4.
43. George Albert Smith 2.
47. David O. McKay 2.
49. Joseph Fielding Smith 1,2.
50. James E. Talmage 5.
51. Stephen L. Richards 2.
53. Melvin J. Ballard 2.
54. John A. Widtsoe 5.
61. Harold B. Lee 1.
63. Ezra Taft Benson 3.
64. Mark E. Petersen 1.
68. Marion G. Romney 1.
78. Boyd K. Packer 1.
80. Bruce R. McConkie 1.
85. Russell M. Nelson 1.
-------------------------------------
1. Taught (or teaches) No Death Before the Fall
2. One of five 1930 committee members who unanimously rejected
death before the fall in proposed priesthood manual
3. Recommended in general conference Joseph Fielding Smith's
book Man: His Origin and Destiny which teaches ndbf throughout
4. Neutral. Upheld committee decision not to publish
manual containing death before the fall teachings,
but refused to rule on ndbf as doctrine
5. Taught death before the fall of Adam
Please contact me if you see any omissions.
r dot gary dot shapiro at usa dot net
---------------------------------------------------
Now let's go back to the sentence we were talking about. "Since FP/12 interpretations of this particular elephant (nbdf) have changed and are open to change, the most it provides is some kind of speculation on the elephant and I'm not sure how dogmatically we should hold to such speculation." Have interpretations of ndbf changed? They haven't changed so much as, for a short time, they were challenged. From the days of Joseph Smith, ndbf has been and is being taught. This is a constant.
For 41 years, between 1911 and 1952, ndbf was challenged by two apostles. Heber J. Grant, the only Church President who presided over both of these apostles, declined to rule one way or the other about ndbf.
But the fact that seven Church Presidents before and since have promoted ndbf carries a lot of weight with most Church members, especially when, for the past 100 years, the Quorum of the Twelve has always had at least one member who actively promoted ndbf and right now there are two (Packer and Nelson). "This is why I was asking you what you see as your project as far as ndbf is concerned." My project will continue as it began. Promote accurate information about the events of 1928-1931 (click here). Expose false statements in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article about Evolution (click here). Where it is mocked or denied, highlight the existence and validity of the LDS doctrine of No Death Before the Fall (click here). And when the falsehoods in these areas of concern no longer circulate, I will find something else to do. "If you seek after truth, then you probably shouldn't put too much assurance on speculation." Speculation has nothing to do with any of this. We will not learn the ultimate truth about ndbf until we are no longer limited by our mortal condition. In the meantime, I will place my assurance on honest and true, if incomplete, interpretations of the (to mortals) incomprehensible ultimate truth. "If you're simply trying to prove that the Church in the last 40 years has supported ndbf in many different ways, then that's a point I (and I think many others) are willing to concede." Point taken. I very much appreciate this part of your comment. "But that point alone, even according to your own reasoning, doesn't make it the truth." According to reasoning set forth above, the fact that it may not be the full and complete ultimate truth doesn't mean it isn't truth. And if anything I said earlier gave you a different idea about my views, it should be reread in this context.
Your blogging friend and brother,
|