- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I think everyone has heard the statement that Joseph Smith was purported to make. Someone asked him for a sign of the truthfulness of his preaching. JS replied “a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign”. So, in the Golden Plates thread we have going, or any thread where people wish there was more concrete evidence of the Church’s claims, this assertion by JS comes to mind. What do you think? Was this an absolute truth? Is it possible that the righteous, when faced with challenges, also wish there was a sign to buoy them up? Or is it only the wicked adulterers who do this?
I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I may incriminate myself. doug wrote:I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I may incriminate myself.
I second the emotion.
I think it’s a very subjective statement with lots of possible interpretations – dealing mostly with the definitions we use for “adulterous”, “generation” and “sign”. When those three words are considered in light of how they were used at the time of the statement and in light of the collective, communal (rather than individual, personal) nature of their meaning, I think a VERY different meaning emerges than, “Anyone who wants a sign is an evil adulterer.” I don’t read that meaning into the statement at all.
Ray — but isn’t a generation simply a collection of individuals? For example, isn’t generational wickeness simply a manifestation of individual wickedness? As far as I can tell, when Jesus originally said those words, he said them to Pharisees and religious leaders who doubted his messiahship. They wanted him to prove he was indeed the messiah by performing miracles. But Jesus’ miracles (with the exception of the cursing of the fig tree which I can’t, for the life of me, figure out) always had a greater purpose – to heal, to forgive, and of particular importance in 1st century Jerusalem, to make ritually clean by removing disease. They wanted to see power without purpose.
I think there is a
hugedifference between asking for a sign of Jesus’ messiahship or God’s goodness and asking for evidence that the church (or a church) is true or that it’s claims are accurate. When we or others ask such questions, we’re typically not asking for a raw, pointless demonstration of power; we ask because we want reassurance that we are on the correct path, in the correct place, and doing the right thing. And as many frustrated parents have said, “the good Lord gave us brains; he expects us to use them.” When we learn of things or see things that don’t seem to fit with our previous perception or understanding, it’s natural to want to reconcile them. The easiest way to do that is to have an assurance that the church is what it claims to be and that its provenance was providential.
[Edited to add conclusion]
Seeking a sign with respect to the church or even with respect to the church’s or an individual leaders’ teaching is not evidence of infidelity; indeed, if we’re concerned that the message doesn’t conform to what the Savior taught and with historical precedent, seeking a sign is, in my opinion, more an indication of fidelity to established truth or teaching.
I really like that, Andrew (and my wife absolutely loved the entire comment) – especially the following: Quote:They wanted to see power without purpose.
SD, when you look at the way the statement is worded, it appears to me that when “sign seeking” (an attitude that nothing at will be believed or accepted or followed unless visible proof is available) is so strong among an entire “generation” that it is impossible for a “people” to have faith in anything, that people has rejected its “covenant marriage” to the God they say they worship and, thus, in Biblical terms, is “adulterous” in that relationship to God.
The usage of adultery as a metaphor for Israel’s actions toward God is nearly omni-present in the Bible – and that’s how I read the statement about an evil and adulterous generation seeking a sign.
OK, thanks…one thing that has sort of impacted my ability to read the scriptures is the fact any scripture seems to be ‘construable’ — can be construed in whatever direction the speaker wants to skew it…What you describe here seems very intelligent and plausible. Particularly when shored up with a host of other references to adultery as an analogy to cheating on your relationship with God. Funny how salvation, something so important — is disclosed in books that are vague, have a history that is only clearly understood by a few scholars, and not the common intelligent man. I see why people like Cadence have trouble believing anything without some kind of proof. Old-Timer wrote:SD, when you look at the way the statement is worded, it appears to me that when “sign seeking” (an attitude that nothing at will be believed or accepted or followed unless visible proof is available) is so strong among an entire “generation” that it is impossible for a “people” to have faith in anything, that people has rejected its “covenant marriage” to the God they say they worship and, thus, in Biblical terms, is “adulterous” in that relationship to God.
The usage of adultery as a metaphor for Israel’s actions toward God is nearly omni-present in the Bible – and that’s how I read the statement about an evil and adulterous generation seeking a sign.
I’m not sure that is how JS understood and used the reference.
“The principle is as correct as the one that Jesus put forth in saying that he who seeketh a sign is an adulterous person; and that principle is eternal, undeviating, and firm as the pillars of heaven; for whenever you see a man seeking after a sign, you may set it down that he is an adulterous man.” (History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 3: 385.)
“When I was preaching in Philadelphia, a Quaker called out for a sign. I told him to be still. After the sermon, he again asked for a sign. I told the congregation the man was an adulterer; that a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and that the Lord had said to me in a revelation, that any man who wanted a sign was an adulterous person. ‘It is true,’ cried one, ‘for I caught him in the very act,’ which the man afterwards confessed when he was baptized.” (Teachings, p. 278.)
BRM provided the following commentary:
“Some sins cannot be separated; they are inseparably welded together. There never was a sign seeker who was not an adulterer, just as there never was an adulterer who was not also a liar. Once Lucifer gets a firm hold over one human weakness, he also applies his power to kindred weaknesses.” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 1: 278)
I personally like Ray’s and Andrew’s interpretations, but they are decidedly non-literal.
SilentDawning wrote:one thing that has sort of impacted my ability to read the scriptures is the fact any scripture seems to be ‘construable’ — can be construed in whatever direction the speaker wants to skew it…What you describe here seems very intelligent and plausible. Particularly when shored up with a host of other references to adultery as an analogy to cheating on your relationship with God.
I agree and it is kind of exciting for me. Yes, the scriptures aren’t a straightforward instruction manual on life just like the church isn’t the one true way. The fact that the scriptures are so “construable” means that you can own them as well. You get to be the construer. The Bible and BOM can belong to you, just as much as they belong to the literalists. They can still carry the word of God to you personally as it becomes a catalyst in the discovery of personal truths. You can discover them anew. By sharing a love for and belief in the standard works (even if your perspective is a little off) it can become a common ground or bridge between you and others that matter in your life.
1) Joseph wasn’t infallible – and neither was Elder McConkie. That quote from Elder McConkie simply is indicative of the black-and-white way he saw everything – and it’s why he was revered by other black-and-white thinkers but caused such angst for those who just don’t see things so starkly. My response to him would be something like: Quote:It could be said quite easily that anyone who believes God will answer prayers and asks someone else to pray about what they are teaching is asking that person to “seek for a sign”.
Think about that; really think about it.We ask investigators all the time to “get their own answer” – to ask God to tell them, in some way, that the Gospel we preach is true. We ask them, in a very real way, to ask God to give them a sign – and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that request.We should be asking people to receive confirmation of some sort before making a radical change in their lives. I refuse to believe that we encourage people toward adultery when we ask them to seek for a sign. 2) Having said that, the reason I tend to parse passages like this one is that it is WAY too easy to take a narrow interpretation and apply it too liberally. I’m sure Joseph’s experience was accurate, and I’m sure it reinforced the commonly accepted interpretation of that statement – but I know of a few people who could be classified as “sign seekers” who are not adulterers. It’s a good example of confirmation bias and self-fulfilling prophecy. There probably were more people in that group that agreed with the man than actually said something – and I’m fairly certain they all weren’t adulterers. They just didn’t believe what they were hearing and wouldn’t accept it without some kind of miraculous manifestation.
That’s the biggest reason I don’t like the classic interpretation. It takes the speaker / presenter off the hook totally and says, in essence:
Quote:“If you don’t believe me and want proof, you must be a horrible sinner.”
That’s why I read the passage differently than the traditional way. I think there is great insight in the passage itself, as written – but I just don’t agree with the common interpretation.
SilentDawning wrote:I think everyone has heard the statement that Joseph Smith was purported to make. Someone asked him for a sign of the truthfulness of his preaching. JS replied “
a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign“. So, in the Golden Plates thread we have going, or any thread where
people wish there was more concrete evidence of the Church’s claims, this assertion by JS comes to mind. What do you think? Was this an absolute truth?Is it possible that the righteous, when faced with challenges, also wish there was a sign to buoy them up? Or is it only the wicked adulterers who do this?I don’t know if very many people are truly sign-seekers nowadays to the point that they would seriously demand to see miraculous signs. I don’t need to see God to believe in him and I don’t need to have my own near-death experience to believe in an afterlife. Personally, I think expecting proof and absolute certainty in the case of religion is missing the point because it seems like it has typically been based mostly on speculation, tradition, anecdotal stories, spiritual experiences, etc. and it admittedly requires some faith so there is no point in trying too hard to prove anything to skeptics (1 Corinthians 1:18-25). It is not lack of undeniable evidence that bothers me; what bothers me is that there is so much existing evidence to contradict the Church’s official story but they continue to act like prophets are nearly infallible and should not be questioned. I don’t believe there is anything adulterous or unrighteous whatsoever about doubting the Church in cases like this where what we see happening repeatedly in practice doesn’t really match what they say we should expect in theory.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.