- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I was pondering this the other day. I was teaching a lesson of my own design — using the psalm of Nephi as a springboard for understanding how to structure thought patterns in a way that builds inner peace and spirituality. It wasn’t in the manual. It was based on my own reflection, and to some extent was my own interpretation of what might have been going on in Nephi’s mind as he reflected on the harsh treatment he received from his brothers. To me, it was some specific advice to help people with their thinking and their overcoming — specific advice I sometimes find wanting in the scriptures. So, I pounced on it. Nephi actually used a number of techniques in the Psalm of Nephi that I’ve discovered in my latest reads of cognitive based therapy. Such as anchoring (reflecting on previous situations where you were strong, until the same emotions and strengths you experienced during that period take over your present state of mind), as well as reframing — visualizing a situation you will encounter later, positively, in such a way to overcome prior thought/behavior patterns.
These were men’s labels placed upon a scriptural account of one man’s struggle to overcome thought patterns that were destroying his inner peace and vexing his own. Some of Nephi’s ideas aligned with these techniques perfectly, as concrete examples.
Was this “the ideas of men, sprinkled with scripture?”. If not, what does that term mean? And even if it was that — what’s so wrong with men’s ideas being woven with scripture, anyway?
SilentDawning wrote:Was this “the ideas of men, sprinkled with scripture?”. If not, what does that term mean? And even if it was that — what’s so wrong with men’s ideas being woven with scripture, anyway?
That phrase comes from the temple. And I think, based on the context of the endowment AND the context of who came up with that phrase and when, that it acts as a declared rejection of some Catholic and Protestant dogma in the 19th century.
So what I am getting at is this is a specific declaration, but we sometimes erroneously generalize it. There should not be a blanket prohibition against good ideas and useful interpretations (philosophies of people trying to use the scriptures in their life). Or even using good ideas that are just plain good secular ideas (with no basis in scripture).
JS and BY were rejecting ideas of Nicean Creed, Infant Baptism, methods of baptism, ideas of the Eucharist and a host of other Christian doctrines that are NOT found in scripture, but come from Christian tradition (the philosophies of early church fathers). The Catholic Church explicitly claims that their traditions are equal or superior to the scriptures. I’m not faulting them for that, just explaining their position.
So that phrase in the temple endowment is a rejection of those non-scriptural doctrines. Of course the funny thing is we Mormons go and add our own revelation / restoration ideas, which is pretty much the same thing. But … in our narrative, we are right. Ours are the philosophies of God mingled with scripture that we get through the philosophies of prophet-men.
:problem: 🙂 I’ve often wondered about the ‘philosophies of men, mingled with scripture’ thing. Brian is probably right about its provenance, but the temple endowment has been scrutinized and changed enough times that I think we can assume it was left in for a purpose, and that it means something other than what it may originally have meant. I know we tend to play these games with the TR questions, too, sometimes. I have some more thoughts about this. Maybe I can sort them out later.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.